RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Abandons Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies; Liberals Smell a Corporate Rat
December 03, 2008 2:47 PM
Shortly after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination in June, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told voters "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."
But not so fast.
The American Small Business League recently noticed that President-elect Obama's reference to a windfall profits tax -- which was once posted on the Obama Transition Team website after Mr. Obama's election victory -- is no longer there, having been removed in what the group called "an unceremonious and abrupt manner."
The Houston Chronicle first reported the story today.
"With the election behind him, President-elect Obama has failed to justify the removal of the windfall profits tax from his tax plan," says American Small Business League President Lloyd Chapman in a press release. "The subtle and unexplained elimination of this issue from the Obama-Biden agenda should concern Americans from every background. The American Small Business League questions whether the sudden elimination of this issue is a further indication that large corporations are already demonstrating their ability to influence the Obama Administration... President-elect Obama owes the American people an explanation as to why these campaign promises have been pulled from his agenda."
An aide to the Obama Transition Team tells ABC News, "President-elect Obama announced the policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel. They are below that now and expected to stay below that."
The Obama windfall profits tax was devised as the price of oil approached its July 3 high of $145.29 per barrel.
While Mr. Obama never specified just what exactly constituted a "windfall profit," the tax was supposed to provide a $500 per person “emergency energy rebate.”
Obama allies argue that Mr. Obama backed off the proposal when energy prices began going down; they point out that when Mr. Obama rolled out his middle class rescue plan in mid-October it did not include revenue from a windfall profit tax because of the price change.
But David Sirota, an outspoken liberal columnist, today writes that "Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations -- is bad for the economy." Sirota asks, "if oil prices are down and oil industry profits are truly down, what's the harm in passing a windfall profits tax? Even if you buy the right-wing nonsense about a windfall profits tax 'hurting the industry' or 'hurting the economy' when it is applied, if there really are no windfall profits to tax, then it won't be applied. That's what a windfall profits tax really is -- a safety valve regulation against profiteering, and one that can raise needed revenues when profiteering occurs. If there is supposedly no profiteering occurring, then what's the supposed harm?"
And at the liberal Mother Jones blog, a writer asks, "Did Barack Obama just break his first campaign promise?"
-- jpt
December 3, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (50)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This issue is ridiculous given that 1., Obama is not even in office yet. 2., I don't believe for one second that Obama would back off on an issue if it was in best interest of the country. Lets be realistic. I did not vote for Obama expecting him to wave a magic wand and make everything hunky dory. We've got two wars, an economic meltdown and energy/climate/national security issues to tackle. All of this will require some patience and COMPROMISE. Get a clue
Posted by: Steve | Dec 3, 2008 5:19:03 PM
You know Obama has to deal with a very complicated economy now, don't you? He cannot make the recession worse by making rash decisions, even if he "promised" to do something. Perhaps his economic advisers are suggesting he not do so right now. Maybe this is not the time to carry out the "promise". You people are laughable. Give the guy a chance to get the country back on its feet first before you start criticizing his every move. What a bunch of whining, picky, petty, malcontents you all are. Of course, you want him to fall flat on his face, don't you? Keep wishing, but it ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: geecee | Dec 3, 2008 4:33:04 PM
Ohh I get it, you get all the kids in the new generation riled up to vote, and then disillusion them with the usual broken promises, and news reports that their vote wouldn't have mattered anyway. That way they never want to throw their support in government again - government is free to run wild once boomers are out of the picture.
Posted by: Mark | Dec 3, 2008 4:11:42 PM
People are so gullible.
Mr Obama lie numerious times to the American people Publicly. On Friends, Family and other things. Caught lying.
The man who came up with excuses after excuses for everything else.
So you people are surprised he is not going to keep his promises.
He may throw crumbs at you but do not expect more.
He will try to smooth talk you into all kind of excuses. He will play his blame game and blame it on everyone else.
Some of the things he will try to change, will not be anything like what you had in mind, or interpreted them as.
Maybe we should invest in gold, stock up on food and get ready for the ride.
Posted by: seah | Dec 3, 2008 4:08:01 PM
It still beats having the president-elect stepping in and saying he now has a mandate for war. :\
Posted by: Mark | Dec 3, 2008 4:05:40 PM
Oh, come on. You guys know he is doing the right thing by all Americans. Stop with the "broken promises" b.s. He has to "go along to get along" and to accomplish anything with Congress he has to compromise. You know that, don't you? Any of you who are criticizing him are just doing so because he made smart decisions, not radical far-left, that you were all hoping he would do, just to show you were right about him. But guess you were wrong. He's got common sense and makes all the right choices for the times we are in. That's smart politics, not just politics.
Posted by: geecee | Dec 3, 2008 4:02:57 PM
Looks more and more like Clinton's Right Of Middle Way every day.
Posted by: Richard McDonough | Dec 3, 2008 3:59:35 PM
Change you can count on!!!
Posted by: roscoe02 | Dec 3, 2008 3:55:21 PM
We'll let's see if the oil companies continue to keep prices low should we tax that.I think we need to only implement taxing them when they raise those prices again.
Posted by: TV | Dec 3, 2008 3:52:37 PM
I agree with you, Huh on the assumption that Obama will do a better job than McCain. McCain did a far greater amount of selling himself out in order to get his parties' nomination.
All we can do is plan for the worse and hope for the best.
Posted by: seansatx | Dec 3, 2008 3:51:58 PM
This is not a flip flop when oil was 143.00 bbl then there is a windfall to tax whenit is below 50.00 bbl wheres the big windfall no windfall no tax what the problem ?
Posted by: Dennis Fort Myers Fl | Dec 3, 2008 3:47:03 PM
Seansatx - Dude you are sounded like Phil Gramm. Whiners, ha!
Don't worry Obama will get his chance, and he will do a better job than McCain probably would. At least Persians will be safer.
Bird is the Word....Just learned that from Family Guy.
Posted by: Huh | Dec 3, 2008 3:46:02 PM
Charlie!
I never said I was a fan or idol of Obama, just sick and tired of listening to people complain of things that haven't even happened. John McCain could have won the election, and the same number of complainers would be on the blogs cryin.
Posted by: seansatx | Dec 3, 2008 3:43:46 PM
Another broken promise from BHO, what else is new?? Fast Eddie Obama throws another promise under the bus.....typical Chicago Pol.
Posted by: smc341 | Dec 3, 2008 3:43:43 PM
More "Change you can Xerox!!!"
Posted by: please! | Dec 3, 2008 3:42:09 PM
Seansatx, LOL
Take it like a man and accept your idol has some flops. Geez!
He can't get away with it for long.
c'mon
Posted by: Charlie | Dec 3, 2008 3:41:23 PM
Give the man a chance to follow through OR break his promises AFTER he is in office. All these idiots speculating and surmising. It's like putting the cart before the horse. Do any of you negative people have a life outside the living Hell you seem to have place yourselves in? Just a question...
Sick of Whiners
Posted by: seansatx | Dec 3, 2008 3:38:12 PM
Cynical Black Democrat and Diana.- you guys nailed! I will add another broken promise to the list, when he promised to take Federal Funds for the Fall campaign and to disclose the donors and lobbyist in his campaign.
I am sure the list will grow and grow quickly!
Posted by: Paul, CA | Dec 3, 2008 3:34:20 PM
There really is not a major difference between the two parties anymore. No politician that promises the world can possibly meet those good intentions. If people really wanted an honest candidate to uphold his or her word, you all would have gone with Ron Paul, but of course nobody likes to hear that they should stop consuming more than they can pay for, and to hear that when we bomb a wedding party in Afganistan there are justified reprisals, or to hear that we are a nation of overweight rude narcissists.
Posted by: Huh | Dec 3, 2008 3:30:51 PM
Wasn't it the wonderful Rev Wright who said Barack is just saying what a politician needs to say...(something along those lines)...guess that applies to all areas! LOL
Posted by: samhiguchi | Dec 3, 2008 3:29:59 PM
Post a comment
