President Obama Proposes $10 Per Barrel Tax On Oil In Push For Cleaner Transport

6 months ago by Mark Kane 208

Obama Proposes $10 Per Barrel Tax On Oil In Push For Cleaner Transport

Obama Proposes $10 Per Barrel Tax On Oil In Push For Cleaner Transport

$10 per barrel fee?

$10 per barrel fee?

President Barack Obama proposed setting a $10 fee per barrel of oil, paid by oil companies, as a way to fund cleaner transportation investment.

Well, we must admit that the timing for this new tax was perfect from the oil price stand point, as prices are now the lowest they’ve been in many years. Just imagine how this news would’ve be received when oil prices peaked a few years ago.

The intention is to gradually phase in the fee in over five years.

Background on funding the President’s plan:

For too long, bipartisan support for innovative and expansive transportation investment has not been accompanied by a long-term plan for paying for it. We need a sustainable funding solution that takes into account the integrated, interdependent nature of our transportation system. Travelers choose between walking, biking, driving, flying, and taking the train; and companies choose between trucks, barges, airplanes and rail lines. So to meet our needs in the future, we have to make significant investments across all modes of transportation. And our transportation system is heavily dependent on oil. That is why we are proposing to fund these investments through a new $10 per barrel fee on oil paid by oil companies, which would be gradually phased in over five years. The fee raises the funding necessary to make these new investments, while also providing for the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund to ensure we maintain the infrastructure we have.  By placing a fee on oil, the President’s plan creates a clear incentive for private sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and at the same time invests in clean energy technologies that will power our future.”

Oil prices (source: oil-price.net)

Oil prices (source: oil-price.net)

According to the U.S DOE, average consumption in 2014 was measured in millions of barrels per day, so the funding will skyrocket up to $60-70 billion or maybe even $200 per capita annually?

“In 2014, the United States consumed a total of 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.11 million barrels per day.2 This total includes about 0.34 billion barrels of biofuels.”

Electric cars were mentioned once – together with charging infrastructure: “ensuring electric cars and other alternative vehicles have the technology and the charging infrastructure they need.”

The Benefits of the President’s Plan

  • Reducing carbon pollution: The plan would make public investments and create incentives for private sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and cut carbon pollution from our transportation sector, which today accounts for nearly 30 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.  The investments in vehicle research and deployment would get clean autonomous vehicles on the road more quickly and more safely, while ensuring electric cars and other alternative vehicles have the technology and the charging infrastructure they need.
  • Strengthening our economy: The President’s plan would support hundreds of thousands of good-paying, middle-class jobs each year and increase the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and the productivity of our economy by making it faster, easier, and less expensive to move American-made products.
  • Making transportation easier for American families: The plan would expand clean, reliable, and safe transportation options like public transit and rail, making it easier for millions of Americans to get to work, access new jobs, and take their kids to school—reducing the 7 billion hours that American waste in traffic each year.”

The new structure would also allow for $20 billion in additional spending to increase transit options between cities and rural areas, while turning rail in a “viable alternative to flying” on major routes as well.   $10 billion will be spent on  regional/local, and state governments f0r new for clean-vehicle infrastructure. $2 billion would go to development of autonomous clean vehicles.

However, the bulk of the money would still go to funding/stabilizing the Highway Trust Fund – which entails fixing a lot of America’s most pressing issues – such as repairing/re-opening bridges and fixing highway that have fallen into serious disrepair.

The proposal will be submitted to congress next week.

Source: The White House

Tags: , , , , ,

208 responses to "President Obama Proposes $10 Per Barrel Tax On Oil In Push For Cleaner Transport"

  1. Ed Hart says:

    By now, we have all seen – again – that lower fuel prices result in Americans rushing to buy large, fuel-inefficicint vehicles. So, given all of the long range needs of this country, taxing oil makes sense. For conservation. For reduced dependency on foreign oil. For infrastructure. For debt reduction. For balance of payments. And this is the time to do it.
    Your mission, should you decide to accept, is to figure out how to make sure that Washington uses those funds for the long term benefit of the nation. Good luck!

    1. CDAVIS says:

      @Ed Hart said: “…figure out how to make sure that Washington uses those funds for the long term benefit of the nation…”
      —–

      There is no need to figure that out because the funds (whatever amount raised by this proposed oil taxe added to the existing oil/gas taxes) have already been spent.

      1. SJC says:

        Congress has not had a real highway bill in 10 years. The last one was patched telling corporations to underfund pensions so they pay more income tax…insanity.

      2. Nix says:

        CDAVIS —
        Which do you consider to be for the “long term benefit of the nation”:

        1) Borrow money to pay for rebuilding a dangerous bridge that will kill people and cost way more to repair if it is allowed to fail.

        or

        2) Pay for that repair with this tax, before that bridge fails and kills people and costs much more to fix.

        1 or 2?

    2. But politicians can never be trusted, when they promise to use the tax money for specific projects only. After a few years, they will silent start redirecting the money to other things.

    3. miggy says:

      Great news, the $10 tax should also be increased by $1 every year.

  2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Great idea, I’d love to see it become reality… and Ed Hart has already explained all the advantages. (Thanks, Ed!)

    But with both houses of Congress in control of the GOP, ain’t gonna happen.

    1. SparkEV says:

      It doesn’t matter Dems or Reps. Good luck in getting any of them to spend the extra tax money for the benefit of the country.

      In contrast, EV tax credit is giving money back to those who paid taxes. It’s not taking but giving. Isn’t giving better than taking? It sure feels better to me to give than take. Here, let me give you a kiss. *smooch* LOL!

      1. scott franco, the evil, greedy republican says:

        Yep, the EV tax takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Just like the college loans and subsidies (generally the upper class goes to college).

        1. SparkEV says:

          How is it “taking from the poor” when the poor didn’t even pay enough to qualify for full credit? “Taking” is taking on a new meaning.

          Far better is to expand (higher amount for poor) and roll over the tax credit so that even the poor who pay taxes can take advantage of it in succeeding years instead of losing it in one year.

          1. Open-Mind says:

            IMO, the EV tax credit already helps the poor, because it also lowers the market value and selling price of used EVs.

          2. scott franco says:

            Go do your homework. The EV subsidy comes from car license registration fees in California, which everyone pays, even illegals without licences.

            Hence, wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

            1. Nix says:

              So do tax deductions for people who have home mortgages. They go proportionally to the wealthy. Poor people often don’t even own homes in order to get home mortgage deductions.

              Same goes with dependent child exemption. If you are in a high tax bracket and make lots of money, each child can save you up to $1,600 in taxes. But if you make around the median household income, that same dependent child only reduces your taxes by $600-$1,000 dollars.

              Congratulations. You’ve come to understand how our entire tax system works, and why we have a progressive Tax Brackets. So that the bottom 43% of people pay zero federal income taxes, to make up for funding wealthy people’s tax cuts that they pay into with other taxes and fees they pay.

              Let me guess, considering your snarky self-labeling, you live up to your own self-labeling and think those 43% are leaches for not paying federal taxes, like many of your fellows who also self-identify themselves the same way…

            2. SparkEV says:

              CA EV subsidy is available for all, including the poor. In fact, poor will qualify for 1.5 times more than middle class, and infinitely more than the rich. You really should do some minimal homework before telling others to do so.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          scott franco, the evil, greedy republican

          “Yep, the EV tax takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Just like the college loans and subsidies (generally the upper class goes to college).”

          Are college loans not available to vo-tech students? If not, that certainly should be changed.

          * * * * *

          Early adopters are always the rich. That applies to EVs as well as other products.

          Those who complain that EV tax rebates primarily benefit the rich… need to get over it. The more EV production is stimulated by tax rebates, the faster the tech will develop, and the faster we’ll see cheaper EVs for the masses.

          The human species needs more long-term thinking.

          1. kdawg says:

            The EV tax credit was the first time in my life I was able to take one. So if I have to give it up, then everyone else needs to give up their credits & deductions.

            1. scott franco says:

              I am so ok with that. Lets give up all the special carve outs, givebacks, subsidies. Free up the economy and reduce the need for and size of the government by half.

              When are you liberal lunes going to realize that all government and politicians do now is take from taxpayers and pass out money to their backers and constituents to buy votes and influence!

              Grow the hell up. There is nothing in this world for free.

              1. Nix says:

                Let me guess, you will call us “liberal loons”, and then cry like a little baby when your rhetoric gets dished right back at you….

                Can’t wait.

              2. SparkEV says:

                Liberal loons for wanting to pay less taxes? You’re just a bastion of socialist republican wanting even bigger government.

                If you like paying taxes so much and want to grow the government even more, don’t take the tax credit, don’t take any deductions, you’re welcome to pay more. No one’s stopping you to write out the big check to government.

                Fact is, I hate what they do with my tax money. I especially hate the fact that I’m treated like some criminal by having my wage garnished every pay check. I intend get back as much as possible, and if it’s for something nice like EV (or kickass EV like SparkEV), all the better.

      2. Michael Will says:

        But the point is that oil is artificially cheap with the resulting environmental costs to be covered by guess what ? Your taxes. That is how unregulated capitalism works, capitalize on gains, socialize the cost. And maybe just maybe after adding the cost to the consumer they make better choices than suggested by the Super Bowl commercials ford and the like will be pushing they gas guzzling ‘green’ SUVs.

        1. SparkEV says:

          Unregulated capitalism will not have socialized cost aspect. One has to get into philosophical discussion about “cost”. For example, cap and trade creates “cost” by placing value in pollution, just like dollar has value without regard to anything, all without explicit regulation.

          1. Dan Hue says:

            The atmosphere is a common good in need of protection for the benefit of all, and Cap & Trade makes it costly to pollute it (not make pollution valuable which would be quite ridiculous). Capitalism seems to have a blind spot for the commons, and that is a way to rectify that, without throwing the baby with the water of the bath.

            1. SparkEV says:

              What does it mean to be costly to pollute? That’s putting value on pollution. One could argue putting value on piece of paper (dollar bills) is the same thing.

              1. Dan Hue says:

                I sort of agree with you, as long as what is seen to have value is the right to pollute, which is in limited supply, not the pollution itself, which is virtually free and unlimited.

    2. Ziv says:

      It didn’t happen when Dems held both houses and the Presidency either, Pushmi. Because it is a bad idea. Cheap oil is the only thing that is keeping our economy going right now. If oil was $100 a barrel we would be back in the recession we are barely limping out of 7 years later.

      1. James says:

        @Ziv – precisely why we need this tax or something very close to it. It’s perfect timing since no politician not on his way out – to the private sector, could ever propose an oil tax without getting his butt handed to him at election time.

        Pushmi is right. The Republicans rely on Big Oil to pay for their expensive election campaigns, and many Dems have their hands out also. If Obama was on point, he’d have inside meetings with key “moderate” Republicans in the House and Senate – esp. Republicans from states with a hand in the energy business. What I’ve noticed ( and few others have ) is that there are Republicans who want that “swing” vote – who want to paint the energy industry as: Concerned about our environment… Don’t laugh – it’s true. If a Republican in a moderate state can appear strong on energy, but also strong on New Clean Energy, he can tip the voting scales his way – getting those moderates and right-leaning Democrats on his side. Of course, the big push for them in their mantra is: NEW ENERGY JOBS. Look to states like Texas, which has more wind farms than any other state.

        If any form of this tax passes – even a $2.00/barrel charge – This is the time to try it – with an outgoing president and political uncertainty the climate in Washington – due to it being an election year.

        Let’s hope and pray something is passed. It could mean the survival of the electric car!

        1. James says:

          Might I add that to get this tax, or something like it past Congress, it would take a maneuver that most politicians just cannot fathom: Giving the other party credit!

          Why? On Twitter and Fb when I have contacted Republican politicians regarding clean air ( never talk to them about global climate change! ) – and our aging infrastructure – I get a few positive messages back such as: “In 2010, I proposed….bla bla blaaaaa”, but it was defeated in the Senate”…. You see – the gargantuan egos of these politicians requires that they indeed will consider moves towards taxing gas or oil, IF they can get credit for coming up with the idea!

          If you know diplomacy, and you want to get something done, sometimes you have to feed egos – and suggest there’s a carrot in it for them.

          If anyone here is an activist, or a doer who gets tired of listening to EV guys complain, but they never take positive action… Go to social media – Twitter is best – and be cagey. Don’t preach – and certainly DO NOT mention global warming or climate change. Instead – mention poor air quality on the rise, especially in our cities, and mention how we moderate voters love clean energy. Tell them you know they believe in clean air for our future children ( hold your tongue – cough cough! ) and tell them you will be looking forward to seeing their ideas and proposals on cleaning our air and improving our crumbling infrastructure ( as to how you will vote come election time )… Let them know you will throw your support behind someone who gets things done in this area.

          Seriously, it’s the only way. But there is a tiny beam of hope. You will be astonished at what you hear back! Just let them think it was their idea!

          1. James says:

            – my response to ( R ) Senator Hotair from Texas: ” a tax on crude oil?! – Why, I never thought of that! – You’re a GENIUS, Senator Hotair!”….

            ( Ugh! ) – But ya gotta do, whatcha gotta do….

          2. Red HHR says:

            Agree with you James. Clean air is good. Energy security is good. Global warming is farce designed to enrich Al Gore and the unions.

            1. Speculawyer says:

              I try arguing national security, economic security, trade deficit, and not supporting Putin/Russia, mid-East Islamists, and African dictators all the time when arguing with conservatives about how they should support EVs.

              It only works with maybe 1 out 9 of them. :-/ But I guess that is better than nothing. Its like guns. The only way they’ll part with their cheap gas and Ford F-150 is when your pry their cold dead fingers off it.

          3. Speculawyer says:

            The fact that you MUST NOT talk about a serious scientifically proven problem (climate change) just tells me that these are not people that should be voted into office. The are guided too much by superstition and wishful thinking instead of hard data.

          4. Ziv says:

            Nice technique, James. Kind of like political jiujitsu. But the air quality in the US has been improving by leaps and bounds.
            There are years where we backslide, but the trend is our friend.
            http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-images-highlight-us-air-quality-improvement/#.VrUVbFJOLpI

      2. kdawg says:

        I’ve heard that crap for years. Well guess what? Gas is $1.50/gallon and the economy sucks. Shouldn’t it be booming right now? When gas was over $3/gal the economy was doing much better.

        And somehow other countries that maintain $5/gallon gas are not in permanent economical turmoil.

        The Emperor has no clothes.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          +5

          Altho it’s not actually that the U.S. economy sucks; overall, it’s actually doing better than any other country in the world. It’s that wages still aren’t rising at the rapid rate needed to make up for years of recession.

        2. Open-Mind says:

          According to Wikipedia, USA oil production has more than doubled during Obama’s presidency, so we are now the world’s largest producer of oil. Saudi Arabia and Russia are a close second and third, respectively.

          Because of that, lower oil prices hurt some parts of the US economy while helping others.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Perhaps it’s my ignorance, but I don’t recall any previous proposal for a tax on a barrel of oil. Raising the gas tax at the pump has been proposed before, and as you say, it would be political suicide for any politician to support that — GOP or Democrat.

        Seems to me a less direct tax, a tax on oil production or imports, would be a less poisonous pill to swallow.

        As for the rest of your argument, Ziv… well, James has posted a much better counter-argument than I would have.

        1. Stephen says:

          It already exists in Alaska and other places where they get a fee for every barrel pumped. Why not a federal fee on every barrel pumped and every barrel imported?

      4. rik says:

        Oil was $100 a barrel 2 years ago, long after the Great Recession had ended.

    3. Scramjett says:

      It is a great idea, which is why it’ll never happen. I’m not convinced that it could happen with even both houses under democratic control. The name of the game is…AUSTERITY! Cut, cut, cut! Everything must go…to the rich!

      I remember reading a piece that basically said that if you broke down the voting record of every senator, then what you would get is not 52 Dems and 48 Repubs (this was before 2014) but 65 conservatives and 35 progressives. That’s probably more like 68 conservatives and 32 progressives now.

      Here I am using the word “conservative” very loosely since I don’t think the majority of people who describe themselves as “conservative” really are.

      1. James says:

        Yet to fully understand politics, the only real time you even HEAR about “moderates” or “independents” is during election time. Why? Because if a politician can cross over and pick up those “soft middle” votes, it can propel them to victory in their district. So it’s at election time they try to “reach out” to us independents, and it’s usually just lipservice – naturally, because they’ll crawl back over to their left-wing progressiveness, or right-wing conservatism once elected.

        The key here is timing and diplomacy. If you sound like a right or left winger – they quickly dismiss you, but if you sound like a “right-leaning democrat”, a “left-leaning conservative”, a libertarian or independent, they know they have to at least appeal to you – to tip the scales their way.

        This is when we try to get them to consider clean air and infrastructure. It’s always good to talk New Energy Jobs and CLEAN AIR FOR OUR CHILDREN TO BREATHE.

        It’s tough for “progressives” or most Democrats to drop talking global climate change, and start finding center ground we more conservative types ( like me ) and they agree upon. While a Republican ( say, Bob Lutz ) may scoff at global warming – he said it was a crock of _hit, he is listening when we talk air quality, national security and jobs.

        So if we’re smart…We angle our argument towards clean air, jobs and national security, not CO2. After all, I hear LOTS of talk on EV sites and Plug-In-America about global climate change. Yet oddly, a whole lot less is said about air quality. Anyone of us who lives in a highly populated area smells the stink of diesel on a daily basis. The VW fiasco is good fodder for talk about clean air. NOX levels are increasing in shocking numbers in megacities. Many global cities have air quality warning days where they encourage people to stay indoors. I want to breathe, you want to breathe – we want healthy children – it’s something we all can rally around.

        Add to that – how do we pay for failing bridges and cracking tunnels, holey highways and new construction of roads? It’s times like these we have to set aside partisan differences and push forward those things we all agree upon.

        CLEAN AIR TO BREATHE. It’s one major reason I am such a big EV advocate.

        1. AlphaEdge says:

          Great post James!

          It’s my main reason also as a conservative, to support EV’s. Clean air!

          Also, it’s insanity that America transfers so much of it’s wealth overseas to countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc., when that wealth should stay at home and support the local economy.

  3. SparkEV says:

    More taxes! Oil is not only used for gasoline, but other things as well. Oil tax will raise those prices, too.

    Far better would’ve been more incentives for EV, such as no limit on number of EV tax subsidy. There’s no limit to home mortgage interest subsidy, there shouldn’t be one for EV, either.

    Or how about national EV highway system where you have chargers every 25 to 50 miles?

    1. David Murray says:

      That money has to come from somewhere. If EV incentives are going to continue and chargers installed everywhere, where does that money come from? Oil tax might be the answer.

      1. Taser54 says:

        Uhh EV incentives come from allowing people to keep more of their money-as it should.

        This oil tax will hurt the poor as it will increase their costs for things like transportation to work and home heating.

        1. Nick says:

          Silly.

          Taxes are a liability, an obligation to pay.

          When forgiven, it’s precisely the same as cutting a check. Balanced book accounting for the win! 🙂

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        David Murray said:

        “That money has to come from somewhere. If EV incentives are going to continue and chargers installed everywhere, where does that money come from?”

        Far better if the money came from ending U.S. military support of, and foreign aid for, those oil-rich countries ruled by oppressive aristocracies that don’t spend any of the oil money they get on improving the education, infrastructure, or living conditions of their own people.

        Since the USA has become a net petroleum exporter, this would be the ideal time to pull out of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and other “arab” countries with oppressive, undemocratic rule.

        This would have the fringe benefit of undercutting support in such countries for terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, which get a lot of propaganda value from the U.S.’s support of such oppressive regimes.

        As I said: More long-term thinking is needed.

        1. SparkEV says:

          Wow Pupu. Rare moment when we agree. I’d blow you a kiss, but see above.

    2. SparkEV says:

      It seems David Murray and Taser54 have time machines. I posted at 10:48AM, David replied at 10:23AM, Taser54 replied at 10:33AM. I thought it’s weird seeing my post again after replying to Pupu.

      1. Nix says:

        Maybe they are just a little more progressive than you are…

        /sarc

        1. SparkEV says:

          Progressive is a strange term. While no one (or very few) is happy with what the government is doing with taxes, “progressives” want to give even more. Why is giving more to entity that you’re not happy with called progressive? It seems idiotic to me. Do you like the way Republican congress spend your money?

    3. Scramjett says:

      I don’t see why you can’t do all of the above? I for one think there is way more than enough plastic (the other major user of oil) in the world. Taxing oil would also help fund clean up of that garbage and reduce its usage in favor of better but more costly alternatives. You needn’t worry though. Even if the oil industry has lost power, the chemical companies have not and would go ape do do over this. Their lobbyists would descend on Washington like a biblical plague of locusts.

      1. SparkEV says:

        I don’t like taxes, because it’s taking and what they do. They’re already swimming in money, take it from elsewhere to fund EV highway, etc. How about getting out of middle east? That alone will probably be enough for EV highway. Then no need for taxes to have higher oil price.

        1. Scramjett says:

          You don’t like taxes? Ok, so, how do you propose society function?

          My problem with taxes is not the taxes themselves, its where it’s coming from, or should I say, where it is not coming from.

          Incidentally, if we didn’t have corporate and Wall Street but kissers in Congress, then you could probably develop a tax that will effect ONLY those entitled pissants and not the “average American” (if there is such a thing).

          1. SparkEV says:

            American revolution was sparked due to taxes; people paid very little in taxes, yet the society functioned fine. Before 1913, there was no income tax, yet society functioned just fine. When federal income tax was enacted, it was supposed to be 2% just for the rich (soak the rich, sound familiar?). Now everyone pays far more. Excess tax is used for stupid things like war. I intend to pay as little as possible as the law permits.

            1. Scramjett says:

              Not exactly. The American Revolution was sparked for a myriad of reasons. The raising of taxes happened without any say by the colonials, or did you not learn in school the Patriot motto of “No taxation without representation.” See, they didn’t have a problem with taxes specifically, they had a problem with not having a voice in Parliament. They also had a very BIG problem with the East India Company for whom those taxes were designed to help.

              There may not have been income taxes prior to 1913, but there were taxes (think Whiskey rebellion in the 1790s). And we got along “just fine” simply because society was a good deal less complex than it is today.

              Now, I absolutely agree with you that far too much of our tax dollars are wasted on stupid wars and war aims. So there, we agree on something, (deadpan) yay.

        2. Nick says:

          Tax what you want less of.

          Want to lower oil use? Tax it.

          1. SparkEV says:

            So abolish income tax? We all want more income. I like that!

            1. Nick says:

              No opinion directly on that.

              Taxing accumulated wealth sounds much better than taxing income.

              Need to get more wealth back to the middle.

              1. Speculawyer says:

                Well, a proxy way to do that would be to raise the capital gains tax. Make it the same as ordinary income.

                1. Scramjett says:

                  I’d be down with that.

    4. kdawg says:

      “More taxes! Oil is not only used for gasoline, but other things as well. Oil tax will raise those prices, too.”
      —–
      That is part of the problem. If we tax the “sin” then it will force industries/economies to look for other solutions besides oil.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Right.

        It’s possible to make plastics using sugar rather than petroleum; it’s just more expensive.

        I’d love to see funding for finding cheaper alternatives to using petroleum for making plastics, and a tax on petroleum would be one way to pay for that.

      2. Scramjett says:

        +10!

      3. SparkEV says:

        Short term, the extra tax will raise prices on oil goods, not just fuel. That will disproportionately impact the poor far more. Even if they eventually find other ways to make the products as cheap as oil based products, what do you think they’ll do with extra tax money? More than likely, it’ll go to things like F35 and other weapons. Look at all the wars and bases around the world. There’s huge surplus of tax money, and there isn’t any need for more taxes that’ll affect Americans. Cut taxes, find the money elsewhere, and give more EV subsidy (give back tax money)

  4. abasile says:

    I’m for a carbon tax, and adding a $10/barrel tax on oil seems like a good start. However, I’m very skeptical that blowing all of the resulting tax revenue on new spending is a good idea. I’m frustrated at the Republican Party’s “head in the sand” approach to climate change, because we need alternatives to the sort of “tax and spend” policies that many Democrats seem to be fond of.

    1. Nix says:

      I’ll take “tax and spend” any day over the “cut taxes and spend even more” that we’ve gotten from the other party.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Cut taxes? Which party is that? Under both parties, taxes have increased, not decreased. If you mean lying about cutting taxes, Dems are at least honest about it, unlike Reps. Of course, we all know the famous words, “read my lips” BS.

  5. Someone out there says:

    All good, it should have been done ages ago.

  6. Alan says:

    Here in the UK when prices reached rock bottom a week or two back it was still $7 a gallon, about 70% of this was tax ! At one point when the exchange rate was closer to $2 to the £ we were paying about $15 a gallon !

    Why on earth do you think we drive around in tiny compact cars or stinky diesels !

    Incidentally, food prices here are one of the cheapest in the world and far cheaper than in mainland Europe for some reason ?

    1. James says:

      Some Europeans find it odd that we Americans seem to always have politicians that want to turn our country to socialism. And that people actually listen to them.

      Socialists believe the very people ( they call them, “the 1%” ) that already pay 75% of the taxes paid per year – should pay even more. The promise to the middle class and poor is: “Free stuff!” – Free education, free healthcare – and what the heck – maybe just sit on your ass and let those good guys in government just pay for your rent and food too!

      Problem is – in trying to force everyone to be equal, it dampens incentives to excel and prosper. Why? If all that you get is more taxes! So they find out that people who have prospered are smart and have good accountants and lawyers. All those rich employers do is move to a place where taxation and penalties are fewer. So what is next? Enabling government to run your business?

      Then next nasty thing that happens when taxes, regulations and penalties abound to businesspeople is that they soon find that even upping taxes on the upper class is not enough to fund all the hands that are out to recieve free stuff. So the next big move is to raise taxes on the middle class. This, the very people they promised prosperity and more stuff to in the first place to get elected!

      In the end, there rises a rich class, and a poor class. The middle class is eroded. So the end game seems to be to force all to be on the take from big government – the Big Daddy who takes care of you, tells you what to do, and what to believe.

      How “progressive” is that? And is it any wonder starry-eyed college students believe in this nonsense? They don’t do the math. They just hear what they want to hear – “free stuff for everyone!”, and bring in more poor from across our borders to give the free stuff to! And we’ll all be happy and eat ice cream!

      1. James says:

        * Oh, yes – and is it any wonder this “rich class” is mainly made up of corrupt politicians who have reaped the rewards of all this high taxation, and corrupt businesspeople who have realized that paying the politicians insures you keep your wealth?

      2. James says:

        *and look at whom those “progresssives” target to spread the “good news” of socialism. They go to immigrants, the poor and the uneducated in those that feel slighted, like racial and sexual minorities. This promise of free stuff sounds really good to them.

        Next trick is to rewrite history. Instead of Republicans leading the way to emancipation, they invert history and claim they are the friends of the oppressed. This way, they can enslave those that believe their message to stay slaves to government, and not strive to rise up from poverty by buying into the American dream. Stay down, and keep your hand out – don’t strive to educate, innovate, create – and be great.

        Funny how simple the “progressive” plan to power is, when you step back and take a look.

  7. Kevin C. says:

    It’s a damn fine idea. Oil is a seriously potent narcotic. It should be used to make durable goods not smoked thru a crack, er, tail pipe.

  8. Alaa says:

    Fantastic news.

  9. Benz says:

    Great plan

  10. Warren says:

    A carbon cap is needed, not a tax. I voted for him twice, but this just another cynical political ploy, meant to imply a distinction between Dems and Reps. The biggest distinction between the parties is their rhetoric. Their real customers/masters are not the voters.

    1. Scramjett says:

      +1

      He’s also leaving office in under a year. He knows he doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hades to get it done while he’s still in office. He’s just trying to excite the Dem base.

      1. Aaron says:

        The President knows this won’t go through… but it will get discussion going. Of course the local radio station asked people at a gas station what they thought. “Oh noes! Obama Hussein Muslim is gonna tax me again?” I hate Texas sometimes.

        1. Scramjett says:

          I’m tired of all the “talk, talk, talk.” It’s just another way of preserving the status quo, delaying action so that nothing happens, rules get weaker, and at the end of the day, nothing happens and the status quo gets to be preserved. I’m all for a open and vetted public process, but it is increasingly used as a stall/delaying tactic to avoid real positive action.

  11. Anton Wahlman says:

    Dear Hillary or Bernie, please make this proposal the centerpiece of the 2016 campaign: “Let’s raise the price of fuel by 30%.”

    1. Get Real says:

      Spoken like a true financial sector guy Anton.

      You know, the ones who crashed not just the US economy, but the entire world’s economy and then got publicly bailed out and not one of them went to jail despite the pervasive corruption, manipulations and insider trading.

      1. ffbj says:

        Yes, it does give one pause to question the way things are run on almost every level.

        When I was 6 I heard on the radio someone say:’Politicians are all a bunch of crooks.’
        My political education was virtually complete at that point, as I had learned all I need to know about politicians. Now that I am over 60, nothing has changed.

      2. Open-Mind says:

        “…the ones who crashed not just the US economy, but the entire world’s economy…”

        This is a common meme. What Republican legislation or policy supposedly did that?

        1. Speculawyer says:

          He said “financial sector guy”, not Republican.

          1. Open-Mind says:

            Correct, but the same meme is usually directed at the GOP, like when President Obama said this about the GOP in 2010:

            “After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back,” … “No! You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.”

            1. Speculawyer says:

              Well, if you want reasons that I believe the Republicans contributed to the financial meltdown, they would be:
              1) The “ownership society” where they pushed to have everyone own homes . . . even when they can’t afford it.
              2) Loosening of banking/financial regulations.
              3) Massively fiscal irresponsible behavior. They slashed taxes while entering wars. One of the things that drives me crazy about Republicans is that they endlessly whine about the deficit/debt when they are not in the white house but as soon as they win the White House, they borrow and spend like drunken sailor. Reagan ran up more debt than every president before him COMBINED. Bush came into office with a surplus and then left with a $1 Trillion deficit!

      3. AlphaEdge says:

        I think you missed his point entirely.

        Anyway, on your blanket statements, which I never overly fond of:

        > pervasive corruption

        Any specifics on corruption?

        > manipulations

        Any specifics?

        > insider trading

        You do know that people are prosecuted by the SEC all the time for insider trading, and go to jail for it. So your claim of “not one of them went to jail” is not very accurate. Who specifically insider trading and got away with it?

  12. Mart says:

    Taxing gasoline and diesel fuels impacts the users of those fuels who use roads. Taxing petroleum increases the costs of asphalt for paving as well.

  13. scott franco, the evil, greedy republican says:

    Sure the oil industry, which is more dependent than ever on smaller companies with the fracking boom, needs to have more “windfall” taxes levied on it. Lets make sure the maximum number of fracking businesses collapse so that domestic drilling can’t recover if oil prices go higher.

    1. Michael Will says:

      Fracking needs to stop.

      1. AlphaEdge says:

        Right, we should transfer more of our wealth to Saudi Arabia!

        1. Speculawyer says:

          LOL! Why do you hate the free market? If the Saudi oil is cheaper, we should buy it.

          Subsidizing US oil would be amazingly stupid. There is only one way that the US can be energy independent . . . MOVE AWAY FROM OIL. We only have 2% of the known reserves. We cannot drill our way to oil independence. The current fracking bust proves it. I’ve been fighting all these “Saudi America” and “Energy Independence” stories that have come out in the last couple years. They are garbage and they’ve fooled so many idiots into thinking that we produce all the oil we need. That is complete BS. Even with the fracking revolution, some 40% of the oil run through our refineries is imported.

          1. AlphaEdge says:

            I just think, we should do something about the current account deficit, which is a huge drag on the US economy, and has been for a long time, and largely due to oil imports.

      2. scott franco says:

        Fracking has done more to reduce pollution, by creating a natural gas economy, than any other initiative, including solar, wind, Al Gores mouth, etc.

        In a sane world, you lefties would be embracing fracking. Instead you bitch about it. Sad.

        1. Speculawyer says:

          Fracking has definitely reduced the toxic air pollution by displacing coal which is dirty nasty stuff.

          However, from a climate-change greenhouse gas perspective, natural gas may have accomplished nothing. So much methane is lost during fracking, transport, and distribution that the fugitive methane may be worse that CO2 from coal because methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas.

          So we really still need to push hard on onshore wind, solar PV, CSP, geothermal, nuclear, offshore wind, hydropower, etc.

    2. SparkEV says:

      You bring an interesting point. Instead of oil tax, how about imported oil tax? That will still raise oil prices, but help US producers at the same time. Normally I’d be against tariffs, but since we’re paying so much for middle east “bases”, I think oil tariff might make sense.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      scott franco said:

      “Lets make sure the maximum number of fracking businesses collapse…”

      So that would be another benefit, then. Thanks for pointing that out! 😉

    4. Nick says:

      When sarcasm completely backfires.

      If the entire oil industry in the US fell apart, it would be super painful for us in the medium term and wonderful long term.

      They are f#$king over our world to feed our oil addiction. The sooner we break it, the better.

  14. James says:

    Note to InsideEVs and every other website that does it:

    PLEASE…please stop putting up photos of Obama in the Volt, and Obama sitting in a Bolt!

    Why? Because those are the very images bantied about by conservatives to prove: “EVS ARE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT STUFF!”

    It’s not true, Volt was a big reason many Republicans folded on saving GM. It was under George W. Bush that the car companies were bailed out.

    1. ffbj says:

      Well it simply demonstrates the stupidity, shortsightedness, of those people.

    2. kdawg says:

      There, I fixed it for you. 🙂

      1. M Hovis says:

        lmao! I just can’t stop laughing. Best one yet kdawg.

        Let me look at it again. I hurt myself that time. Still laughing…

      2. ffbj says:

        Bad kdawg, Bad kdwag, funny as he double hockey sticks.

      3. James says:

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!~ falls down onto the floor and rolls around laughing! 🙂

        You ARE the King of Photoshop, my man!

      4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        ROTFL!

        Well done, kdawg.

      5. Foo says:

        All ready to drive to church.

      6. Speculawyer says:

        That’s first time I’ve had an urge to punch someone in a Volt.

        1. AlphaEdge says:

          I felt the same when I saw Obama in there.

      7. Rick Danger says:

        Excellent!

      8. scott franco says:

        Like 🙂

    3. Speculawyer says:

      “please stop putting up photos of Obama in the Volt, and Obama sitting in a Bolt!

      Why? Because those are the very images bantied about by conservatives to prove: “EVS ARE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT STUFF!””

      I didn’t realize that conservatives were that easily manipulated.

      Then again, I guess Trump proves it every day.

  15. Warren says:

    I read that the proposal is for a tax on imported oil, not domestically produced. Also, why not put the tax on gas and diesel?

    1. SparkEV says:

      If true, “imported” is very important word missing in this article. If it’s only for imported oil, domestic producers could be all for it as that’s what’s killing them.

      1. Jay Cole says:

        Warren, that isn’t quite right.

        I’ve listened to the call myself, and the fee is applied to both domestic and imported barrels consumed in the US.

        Where you might be getting tripped up is that the fee does not apply to crude exported from the US (as that would mess up all kinds of trade/stability issues)

        1. Warren says:

          Just know that is the “new” Warren again, not me

          1. Jay Cole says:

            Hehe,

            Actually from my end I see a specific ID number with each post (so we can tell what is happen when there is handle-jumping)

            …but still, maybe you guys should add another initial or something just so others can keep it straight too, (=

          2. Scramjett says:

            How about “Proper Warren” and “Other Warren?”

            1. Nix says:

              Proper Warren and Improper Warren?

            2. SparkEV says:

              Or different avatar? Image shows Warren 0 to be 9b63… whereas Warren 1 to be dc03…

          3. Scramjett says:

            You’d be “Proper Warren” of course. 🙂

        2. Nix says:

          A tax (tariff in this context) on US produced crude oil that is exported abroad would also violate a number of our international trade treaties.

  16. James says:

    – Obama sits in a Bolt for 2 minutes at NAIAS and all Republican web articles on, “EVs are a joke!”, show that photo!

    Obama sits in a Volt at Hamtramck for 2 minutes, and the picture pops up every time a Right-winger jabs at GM, or tax subsidies for EVs….

    ARRRRGHHHH! Stop! Stop the madness!

    Are there any photographs of George Bush Sr. handing the keys to the Volt he bought to his son? I WANT THAT PHOTOGRAPH!

      1. James says:

        Not good enough.Those were the days when politicians were shown Prius with aftermarket or home-made lithium battery packs stuffed inside them.

        Oh man – how time flies! What ever happened to the Phoenix truck?!! I heard the company was bought out by the Chinese or something, and died. Not long ago, maybe one year – I read that the Phoenix truck was back on track, and would be sold…But then that story vanished into the web universe again….

        Nope – need a photo or photos of known Republicans sitting in a LEAF or i3 or Tesla or Volt….sigh…. George H.W. Bush bought a Volt for his son, and former CIA director and Republican James Woolsey is a Volt owner and a huge advocate of electric cars. Minnesota state lawmaker and Republican Pat Garofalo owns a Tesla and is a major EV advocate.

        They’re out there. I lean to the right myself, but consider myself an independant. I actually did vote last presidential election…Even though I got sick each time I contemplated my 2 choices for the “leader of the free world”. I didn’t vote for Romney nor Obama… In voting independantly, I know I threw my vote Obama’s way — but that actually reflected my views in an abstract way. While I stand opposed to many “progressive” ideologies, I stand with them in environmental ones and some other issues.

        Most definately, I am a defender of our Constitution. This is something that is constantly under fire from the left. So here I stand, on an island – not endorsing either side.

        1. Speculawyer says:

          “Most definately, I am a defender of our Constitution. This is something that is constantly under fire from the left.”

          Meh. It is a matter of opinion. Some on the left would certainly like to get rid of the second amendment in view of how many people get killed by guns in this country compared to Europe, Japan, etc.

          But the right has plenty of assaults on the constitution. They’ve strip away a lot of 4th and 5th amendment protections of civil liberties. The right also pushes a lot of Christian religion based laws the violate the separation of church & state.

          1. Open-Mind says:

            The “separation of church and state” is not in The Constitution. It says this…

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

            1. Speculawyer says:

              Ugh. That’s such an inane argument. That’s like saying Republicans are the real pro black party because a Republican freed the slaves (ignoring the flip that occurred after LBJ passed the civil rights act and the Dixiecrats moved to the GOP).

              Yes, the establishment clause and all the supreme court cases decided on it are the solid constitutional law. Separation of church & state is just handy phrase explaining it.

              1. Open-Mind says:

                Your reply is typical. When exposed to contrary facts, liberals often respond with condescension and insults.

                You explanation of “Separation of church and state” is pure anti-theistic distortion. That’s why our historic monuments & buildings & documents in Washington DC are peppered with religious phrases & symbols . You don’t like that fact … I get it.

                I could destroy your other distortion too, but it would be a waste of my time.

                1. James says:

                  “In God We Trust” plainly printed on our monies.

                  Speculawyer may prefer, “In Me We Trust”, or “In Government We Trust”, or maybe, “In Money We Trust”….?

                  A real rift exists between people like Spec, who truly believe the purpose of government is to run the country – and that is a slippery slope ( knowing human nature as we do ), since the “progression” becomes government having more and more power over us – government running US! I stand closer to the Bill Of Rights and Constitution in that I believe our founding fathers intended on elected officials SERVING US, as “public servants”, a noble cause. We hire them and we fire them – the will of the people.

                  Look at last year’s presidential election alone. Romney and Obama campaigns spent over $1Billion apiece trying to gain your vote. In fact, it was well over one billion dollars apiece. Now I ask you – who wants to spend $1Billion of our money for a job that makes $200+thousand/yr. and restricts their personal freedom to such extreme levels? It’s about power. That’s why. Political parties want power, and those running for the office seek great power also.

                  Each president seems to seek even more power over the people, as Obama has set a record in ordaining “czars” over every single issue he can. I read how many times just in the last year Obama’s people submitted to Congress new ways he could seek a longer term! And he is not the only president to seek longer terms, but be rebutted.

                  1. Speculawyer says:

                    Wow, you really seem to hate democracy. Perhaps you can move to a theocracy or dictatorship and see if that works better.

                    Democracy is the worst form of government . . . except for all the others. It certainly has significant flaws and problems. But it is the best system we have. We are lucky to a have relatively non corrupt system . . . and I do mean relatively as there is massive corruption but far less than a typical African democracy. But we have a relatively free press and good regular transfer of power so the system can be a bit self-correcting.

                    The people that run for president in the USA do it for the fame and for the desire to make things better. Look at Romney . . . they guy was very rich and would have a much more difficult and hard life if he won. But I believe he wanted to get into power and make things better. He was not some power-hungry monster. And the same with Obama, he wanted to get into office and make things better. Certainly there are some Charlatans running. And a LOT of a big donors are crass individuals seek to purchase favorable laws and regulations. On both sides. It is our job as voters to try to select the least corrupt person with the best ideas to run the government.

                    I believe that science, skepticism, and pragmatism are the best tools we have for making wise decisions, so that is how I vote.

                    I recommend that you do the same instead harboring this overly-cynical view that accomplishes nothing. The Republicans endlessly talk about how government is bad evil thing. That seems to be self-projection . . . the complain about those things but when the get into office, they just go ahead and do those things. Watching Dick Cheney cut his own taxes and start a war that would benefit his financial interests made me sick. Especially since he gave a very eloquent speech during the George HW Bush describing the logical and pragmatic reasons why we did not remove Saddam during the first Gulf war. Don’t get fooled again.

                2. Speculawyer says:

                  There was no contradiction whatsoever. Yes, we still have various historic religious markings on buildings . . . but do you think they represent the law of the land?!?!? LOL!

                  The separation of church & state law of the land is the first amendment and all the cases decided decided upon the establishment clause. Period. Mottos & markings are nothing but irrelevant artifacts.

                  And spare me any of that Glenn Beck revisionist history.

          2. Nix says:

            I would argue that one party would like to enforce the “Well Regulated” part of the 2nd amendment, and the other party wants to ignore that part of the Constitution.

      2. Speculawyer says:

        That is not an EV, that is W Bush next to a fuel cell car. Fuel cell cars are powered by steam reformed natural gas such that they help oil & gas industry.

  17. pjwood1 says:

    Tax pollution, not income.

  18. James says:

    I read last week that O.P.E.C. hanging on to their tactic of not slowing oil extraction at their wells is literally killing the N. American fracking business.

    Frackers are bleeding money right now due to $30/barrel oil. Some smaller members of O.P.E.C. like Kuwait and Qatar are screaming bloody murder as they and the Saudis are losing billions a week keeping to this strategy. Once one Middle East oil producer cracks and begins rationing oil extraction – the house of cards will fall. In other words, they can’t keep up this pressure on the N. American frackers forever. It’s a strange time for oil right now – and it’s a power struggle for the market.

    Here’s the big takeaway. It’s gonna blow. And when it does – the price of gas at your gaspump will soar. It’s coming, and it will be the impetus that just could shoot EVs over the top to mainstream acceptance.

    Next problem is: American’s three month memory to pain at the pump. Sure, hybrid and EV cars will sell like hotcakes during the high price times…But the oil market then swings back down and settles at more moderate prices, and those Americans who SWORE TO GOD they would dump the SUV and Silverado for a hybrid – soon go back to their gas-guzzling ways. This is precisely what happened in 2008.

    So in all this – we hope enough people cross over to electrified cars – as to push the market in a positive direction – producing more and more affordable prices. Competition takes hold, where carmakers compete for the highest range or MPG…and we win.

    1. SparkEV says:

      So true about oil blow over. I hope it happens at peak production of Bolt + Model 3. Chevy might run out of all EV tax credit in months (or weeks) instead of 3 years. 🙂

  19. James says:

    The boiling cauldron of Saudi Arabia is a scary one.

    You see – it is a country responsible for 70% of O.P.E.C.s oil output, yet they are taking huge losses financially by keeping prices low and not throttling back their well production. When they lose billions – they are so rich, they can keep this up for months…But not years.

    Being a royal family, they do not live their lives exactly to the morals and ethics taught in the Quran. With their dozens of wives, gold-plated Rolls Royces and palaces, they are not the picture of what the majority of their population believes in. So how does society work in Saudi Arabia with such contrasts? You see – the Saudi royals pay huge subsidies for their citizens to live, like income and property tax subsidies – and payment for education and jobs. The highly religious population agrees to kind of look the other way morally, due to the rich big daddies of the royal family paying for just about everything. Once these subsidies start to get smaller, or go away completely, this huge pool of religious fanatacism lies just underneath. Remember, Mecca, the center of the Islamic world, resides within Saudi Arabia’s borders. Remember, Usama Bin Laden was the Saudi son of a very rich Arabian developer.

    So herein lies the rub. The royals try to hold this crazy society they invented – that relies upon oodles and oodles of oil spewing from their many wells. This is the black gold that maintains peace and order within their nation. If that oil no longer brings those tremendous profits to the Saudi royal family, the future of their survival is not bright.

    And so it goes. Today is a very tricky time for O.P.E.C.. If the world no longer needs so much crude oil – We may see in our lifetimes a holy war to end all holy wars in Saudi Arabia, and the religious whackjobs mean business. Look at countries like Pakistan, where the peace there is razor thin – with the goverment and their military barely keeping the order – over the right-wing religious fanatics that seek to overturn them.

    It’s not fun to be a Saudi royal these days. I think they barely enjoy their platinum-plated Lamborghinis anymore.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      They can keep it up for years actually. And many years if they start cutting back on all the welfare programs. They’ve got like a $1 Trillion sovereign wealth fund.

      1. James says:

        Tis why I said what I did.

        If they start to reduce social welfare – they’ve released the hounds of revolution. We’ve seen it already in “Arab Spring”. Progressives in America hailed it as – “the people fighting for freedom”. Yet, as it turns out, those people are easily dominated by the religious whackjobs. So what we have now is even a larger mess than that which existed when strongmen leaders kept them at bay.

        Ironic, isn’t it? So we send weapons and trainers and fighter bombers and drones…and…and….And you, the American citizen pays for it all. And essentially, in the end, the people there don’t like us…they detest our way of life! Those countries we are “helping” just turn into oppressive religious cesspools.

        1. Speculawyer says:

          They already have started to reduce the welfare state. Gasoline prices jumped by 50%. Electricity prices going up too. And they will actually have to start paying some taxes! Oh no!

          I don’t see Saudi Arabia crumbing any time soon though. Yes, the people won’t like the austerity . . . but a quick look at the nations around them . . Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, etc. . . . reveals that they still have it great.

          Ultimately, I do think there will be a big Saudi Arabia implosion. I predict all the royals will get on jet planes and move to Europe where they will live off of big banks accounts where they have been stashing money. And Saudi Arabia may become another failed state. But I don’t that happening for at least another decade.

    2. Lad says:

      The threat is really Iran, who now have resumed selling oil, and the so called Islamic Shia-Sunni Divide; if the royal family loses control, the middle-east could be a religious war mess and the global price of oil would definitely increase.

      Remember the royal family executions of last year? Well, Iran remembers also.

      1. Phr3d says:

        well said..

  20. GrokGrok says:

    Sorry, but President Obama has been phoning it in for quite some time. Whether it’s a good or bad idea, he’ll make no effort to sell it to Congress, or see if there’s some compromise way to accomplish his aims which might be able to get through the Congress. This distinguishes him from Bill Clinton who, also faced with a hostile Congress, did make such efforts and was able to get some things done. Since the President evidently doesn’t care, I fail to see why his ideas are worthy of any discussion.

    1. James says:

      I agree.

      While Billy boy was a master B.S.er: “I DID NOT sleep with that woman”… And one who could use techniques such as the ones I described in posts above – to bring about change through compromise…Barack Obama is not. He is a dried-in-the-wool progressive who sees himself as that neighborhood organizer = he against the established rich.

      Odd though, how the rich ( Hollywood actors and industry leaders paid in full for a Hawaii mansion for Barack and family to own after leaving office ), seem to be Obama’s best friends. It’s odd to see when an activist liberal becomes filthy rich, thus becoming the very “evil” he seeks to bring low!

      Remember when fighting for his centerpiece/legacy legislation ( “Obamacare” ), he threw literally ALL of his 2008 campaign promises to ban all near-shore oil exploration and drilling from our coastlines – into the trash bin. In an effort to lure some Republicans in Congress to his side of Obamacare – he literally opened up five states to near shore oil drilling! – This pissed off all his progressive buddies who railed at him on CNN and MSNBC ( for about three months! ) because…Literally TWO WEEKS AFTER his giant cave to the oil industry…The BP Deepwater Horizon disaster unfolded in the Gulf of Mexico before every American’s eyes!!! Funny how karma ( or God’s justice ) prevails in outing hypocrisy, isn’t it?

      1. James says:

        I want to say here – and hopefully, not to the ire of hundreds of InsideEVs readers – that Hillary is not Bill. Many believe in electing Hillary, having Bill in the White House will suddenly turn Washington D.C. into that situation we had when Bill was president.

        No way! Don’t be misled. Hillary is her own person, and she is no Bill. She is hard left, and right down the Obama line. She won’t deal – she won’t compromise – she won’t fold. On top of her personality and political history to study…She has a long, long history of B.S… Lies and scandals follow Hillary like a dog chases a car. Every single place she has been has been draped in utter concealment and avoidance. Whitewater just was pushed under the carpet. It was so sleazy, murder – break-ins and utter disarray were abounding in levels that made Nixon’s Watergate look tame! Today, her avoidance from scandal continues, and those who voted for Obama seldom remember her campaign tactics against him when she was his political foe. She ran TV ads saying:”Will he be able to protect our nation when that phone call comes at 2am?”…Yet her phone call came at 2am ( again, see the ironic justice here? ) for Benghazi, and she said, “I’m tired, I’ll deal with it in the morning”…And beloved American diplomats died a pathetic death! This is all swept under the carpet by some who believe Hillary will be another Bill.

        Indeed, that’s not the case.

        1. Speculawyer says:

          Hillary is also not Trump or Cruz.

          1. AlphaEdge says:

            Yup, she’s much worse.

            1. Speculawyer says:

              I base my politics on science and pragmatism.

              A religious lunatic like Cruz would be AWFUL. I don’t want to ruled the Christian Taliban. Trump would not be as bad but he is a loose cannon.

              1. SparkEV says:

                Looking back to Kennedy, none of them will rock the boat too much; they’ll get killed. However, I’m for any candidate who will further EV progress. So far, none of them said anything about EV AFAIK.

                1. Scramjett says:

                  If “they” wanted to assassinate someone for being a boat rocker, they would have been better off knocking off LBJ. Kennedy had grand and lofty ideas, but it was LBJ that had the political “capital” and strong arm tactics to put those ideas in motion.

                  1. SparkEV says:

                    LBJ didn’t piss off as many people / orgs as Kennedy. By the way, why did not not release Kennedy files again? It’s becoming conspiracy on top of conspiracy.

                    Still, none of the candidates said anything about EV. I hope insideevs cover the story when any of them say something positive.

                    1. Open-Mind says:

                      I hope none of them say anything about EVs, ever. It will just create another political football that damages the EV market.

                    2. SparkEV says:

                      Oooh. Good point. I guess I have to throw darts to figure out who.

        2. GrokGrok says:

          While also not a great fan of Hillary (the whole email business is appalling), I struggle to think what people think she should have done about Benghazi. A U.S. plane with ex-Special Forces departed Tripoli for Benghazi two hours after the initial attacks. Two of these personnel died in a mortar attack on the separate CIA facility in Benghazi.

          Ambassador Stevens, who with a consulate employee died in first hour of the attacks, should never have permitted Benghazi to remain open. He’s the State Department person most directly and most personally responsible, since if he had said it should be closed, it would have been. It’s a fact of life that the security of U.S. diplomats overseas is determined almost entirely by the effectiveness of the local host government security forces, and that the U.S. cavalry will not be riding over the hill to your quick rescue if guys with automatic weapons storm your facility. It wasn’t a good sign in Benghazi that security was provided by local militia forces.

          For consistency’s sake, I hope you are at least as exercised about President Bush (“W”) ignoring those warnings about imminent plane hijackings, and about President Reagan permitting so many U.S. diplomats and Marines to die in attacks on U.S. facilities in Lebanon.

        3. Scramjett says:

          James said “…She is hard left, and right down the Obama line. She won’t deal – she won’t compromise – she won’t fold.”

          ROTFLMAO!!! That is the funniest thing I’ve read all day! Thanks for the laughs James! 😀

          1. James says:

            Would you be happier if I had said, “fold to public opinion and will of the people?”

            OK, – I fixed it for you.

            🙂

      2. ffbj says:

        God’s Justice? I thought the blow out was due to poor engineering, a bad concrete pour and little attention to safety regulations. Who knew if you done all those things correctly that even that would not have mattered, since “God’s Justice” would have caused the well to blow out anyway?

        I was actually with you part of the way in regards to how Obama caved to the oil companies. But here we are gas at $1.60 with Obama as president. Blame him for everything including that, see how silly that is?
        Probably not.

        1. Scramjett says:

          People usually loose me when they start spouting “God’s Justice” also. It’s a default argument that they use to make it impossible for you go counter, because, of course, nothing can counter the will of “God!”
          *Insert dry heave*

          1. James says:

            You can insert, “ironic justice” if you don’t believe in God.

            Or how about karma?

            Whatever floats your boat. It seems the word “God” kind of blinded you to the truth(s) of what I wrote.

            Just sayin’…

      3. Lad says:

        Unfortunately Bill Clinton’s compromises brought us the repeal of Glass Steagall and runaway casino banks that resulted in recession; however, it brought him million in speaking fees (read political paybacks) when he left the White House. Compromise is one thing; giving away the farm is another.

      4. Scramjett says:

        James said “Odd though, how the rich ( Hollywood actors and industry leaders paid in full for a Hawaii mansion for Barack and family to own after leaving office ), seem to be Obama’s best friends. It’s odd to see when an activist liberal becomes filthy rich, thus becoming the very “evil” he seeks to bring low!”

        You’ve answered your own question dude. Obama has been golfing buddies with Jamie Dimon (an accurate name if there ever was one) since taking the oval office is 2008. He sold himself to the Dem Party Base as a progressive and properly fooled the lot of them (myself included) but he never was a true through-and-through progressive from the beginning. He is, and always has been, like Bill, Hillary and the rest of the Dem establishment, a card carrying, neo-liberal corporate/Wall Street butt kisser.

        1. James says:

          So true.

          But if you are “feeling the Bern”, as you seem to sound… Just remember that guy is a career politician. He was on public assistance before he was elected Senator. In all his years of “public service” to Americans and the people of Vermont, he has yet to have one law passed! It’s been revealed his net worth is about $300,000 – probably not enough to keep him off the public dole after he retires!

          So if Bernie’s fantasy world where the rich are punished for pursuing the American Dream, employing others and actually contributing to our economy, while paying over 70% of taxes…actually works. It must be working for him, right? Maybe WE ALL CAN BE IN GOVERNMENT – thusly all be on the government take?

          1. Nick says:

            Much more in touch with the reality of the American struggle.

          2. Nix says:

            Number of laws sponsored or co-sponsored that were signed into law:

            1) Bernie Sanders — 206
            2) Marco Rubio — 19
            3) Ted Cruz — 5

            Although Bernie Sanders hasn’t actually used a strategy of writing stand-alone legislation in order to get laws passed. The Rolling Stone dubbed him the “Amendment King” for the huge number of legislative victories he won through amending other legislative bills.

    2. ffbj says:

      It was just a political move, just to reiterate once again, the opposition of, bought by the oil company politicians, to anything and everything Obama proposes.
      So no hope of it getting past that body.

      As far as getting Congress to move, well that is such a joke, Obama could pull a Mick Jagger on the floor of the house, and it would not satisfy the ‘old age lust’ of the recalcitrant, backward looking, members of Congress, who after they retire can go to work for the oil companies, or defense contractors, or whichever corporation paid them millions during their stint in Congress to do their bidding, can now lobby their buddies on the hill to stop any legislation they don’t like.

      ‘A government by the people, for the people, and of the people, shall not perish from this earth? ‘ It already has.

      1. James says:

        This is why campaign finance reform is so crucial.

        McCain-Feingold was the only legislation we got to stem the tide of exactly what you describe. It’s not just on one side of the aisle – IT IS THE WHOLE PLACE! It’s special interests and lobbies that own the day. It was sad and laughable at the same time – watching the very Congress ( Dem majority at the time ) vote away McCain-Feingold so now there is ZERO restraints upon who gives and gets- making corruption even more rife within D.C..

        I watched a bit on TV a month ago about who gave Ted Cruze $20 million recently. It was two brothers from Oklahoma who publicize that Cruz endorses the moral values of their Seventh Day Adventist faith. But a few minutes into the piece, they showed this 200 acre mansion owned by the brothers and that their riches were made – wait for it – IN THE FRACKING INDUSTRY! And no, their names are not Koch…

        This is why the non-establishment guys have our attention today – but boy, what a slim choice for us Americans! One believes Robin Hood is the example for America’s woes. He was on public assistance when he was elected to Congress, and remained a career politician for decades. The other states he was one of those rich a-holes who paid off politicians ( and donated to Hillary btw ) over the decades to get what he wanted. But today he funds his own campaign and says he is now going to use that knowledge to clean things up and make good deals for America.

        Wow! To all you non-Americans who read InsideEVs, I hope you show some sympathy for us American voters. THIS is what they give us to work with!

        1. PVH says:

          Not better over here you know 🙂

  21. Nick says:

    This Forbes article calls the $10 fee “Disingenuous” and calls it a tax on “poor motorists”. Then it goes on to say Obama’s buddies at Tesla and Google should be the ones to fund driver-less cars and charging stations.
    I was looking for a mention of our “poor grandchildren” that would have to live with the consequences of our fossil fuel economy, but I didn’t find it.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/02/05/obamas-disingenuous-10-per-barrel-oil-company-fee/#1abebd936ee9

    1. Foo says:

      Exactly.

      The government shouldn’t be involved in anything like that. I mean, certainly nothing truly questionable like space exploration or environmental protection.

      The ONLY things the government should be involved in are protecting my right to own the assault weapon(s) of my choice and restricting what women can do with their vaginas.

      1. AlphaEdge says:

        > and restricting what women can do with their vaginas.

        You mean getting every tax payer to pay for aborting children, whether they believe in it or not.

        I wonder if the world would be a better place, if your mom ‘exercised’ her vagina before you were born. It’s not like you would be against that!

        1. Speculawyer says:

          “You mean getting every tax payer to pay for aborting children, whether they believe in it or not”

          No, he meant what he said. They hyde amendment has been around since the 70’s and has long prevented taxpayer money paying for abortions. But that doesn’t stop the fact-challenged conservatives from spewing such nonsense.

          1. AlphaEdge says:

            Took me two seconds to look it up:

            “In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.”

            and from wikipedia on that amendment:
            “The cutoff of federal Medicaid funds prompted some states to provide public funding for abortion services from their own coffers.”

            You noticed the word “public funding”?

            And you’re calling me fact challenged?

            1. Speculawyer says:

              I should have made it clear that I was talking about Federal law and federal spending. The name ‘Hyde’ as in Senator Henry Hyde was a clue but not explicit enough.

              So . . . I guess you are against states rights then? States can’t make their own decisions on such funding?

              1. AlphaEdge says:

                You said they cannot fund abortions, yet it says right there that they fund abortions in certain cases. It’s the reason why I posted that sentence.

                You turning this into states rights? So I’m supposed to be against the morality of this on a federal level, and not a state level?

                1. Nick says:

                  “Morality”.

                  That’s rich.

                  1. Nick says:

                    We can’t have a tax on oil because abortion.

                    So silly.

                2. Speculawyer says:

                  I was indicating that the Federal government cannot pay for abortions since Federal discussion is where most discussion is and was the topic of this story (a Federal $10 tax per barrel). Yes, states can fund abortions.

                  And you are certainly entitled to oppose state funding of abortions in your state. However, I am pointing out that ‘states rights’ is supposedly a conservative principle and thus if you oppose abortion funding in other states you are violating that principle.

                  However, that “principle” has always been a sham . . . as soon as things like state food labeling laws, state right-to-die laws, state marijuana decriminalization, etc. and other things that Republicans don’t like happen, the whole ‘states rights’ “principle” is thrown out the window.

          2. AlphaEdge says:

            Forgot to mention, that Planned Parenthood, that gets most of it’s funding from the “public purse”, is the largest abortion provider around.

            1. Scramjett says:

              Way to push that fiction. And no, I will not provide “proof” that it is fiction, and I’ll tell you why:

              “Make a rational argument and he’ll question your data, present your data and he’ll question your sources.” Trying to prove my point is hyperbolic and a waste of my time.

              1. Scramjett says:

                PS – I have better things to do with my time like spend it with my kids and wondering if their future will be ruined by people who “share your viewpoint.”

                1. AlphaEdge says:

                  Thank you! Your input is not needed.

                  1. SparkEV says:

                    LOL. You guys are funny!!!

                    1. Nick says:

                      LOL +1
                      I had no idea where this discussion would go when I posted the Forbes comment, but I have been Laughing Out Loud!

                      BTW I give money to Planned Parenthood every month.

            2. Speculawyer says:

              Planned Parenthood does indeed receive federal funding . . . but that federal funding is ONLY for non abortion related services. Pap smears, birth control, cancer screenings, STD testing, etc.

              I never understand why the Republicans are so fiercely anti-abortion. Any pragmatic person can look at the GDP/capita of countries with liberalized abortion and those with strong abortion restrictions and thus see that strong abortion restrictions is a pathway to poverty. I suspect that much of the Republican elite are fine with liberalized abortion . . . but they just pay lip service to the theocratic rubes in the base in order to get votes. But there certainly are now a number of real theocratic Republicans who are theocratic true believers (Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, Ben Carson, etc.) . . . and I suspect that will prevent the GOP from getting the White House back.

              Especial if this Zika outbreak grows. Is the GOP going to force all women with babies having microcephaly to carry their pregnancies to term? I predict that will not go over well.

        2. Foo says:

          The government does a lot of things that not every tax payer supports. Some people don’t believe it waging war, yet our government merrily forces them to pay for it. Some people don’t believe in helping the poor, yet our government has many such programs.

          So, shall we have a government that ONLY does those things that EVERYBODY agrees on? No, because then absolutely nothing would get done.

          Much like the government we have now.

  22. Speculawyer says:

    It would be a great thing but it will never happen.

  23. PVH says:

    This is what I always wrote here for more than year, you guys have too cheap gas to make EV’s mainstream.
    Three things needed: expensive gas, cheap batteries & tough regulations on emissions. Here in Europe we only have the expensive gas yet, not sufficient.

  24. Trollnonymous says:

    What a typical dumbass approach, we’re led by total morons.

    Why add a tax? Just stop subsidizing petroleum and there’s all the money you need for highway/road infrastructure.

    1. Nix says:

      They tried that. Repeatedly. They’ve submitted bills detailing every oil industry tax subsidy by name that they would eliminate.

      Unfortunately every attempt was met with massive denial, that even when listed, the opponents tried to claim the long list of tax subsidies didn’t exist.

  25. Scramjett says:

    The plot thickens (as in this article seems to think its for HSR)…

    http://www.cahsrblog.com/2016/02/obama-proposes-10-fee-on-every-barrel-of-oil-for-high-speed-rail/

    1. James says:

      And so it’s exposed: This is a tax to pay liberal buddies in California and elsewhere to build outdated, inferior and NOT SO HIGH SPEED, “high speed rail”.

      Ughhh….

      Now, if the Hyperloop experiments pan out…I would be on board to give incentives toward a true, revolutionary transport system like that. This present crap has been proven to go towards lining politician’s pockets promising jobs in building rail that isn’t high speed at all.

      So, another “make work” plan for garbage. Look up Amtrak on Wikipedia. See what a grand failure and waste of American’s tax money that flop was! Amtrak bleeds money like crazy. Ever ride Amtrak? I have. At some points in the nation, you swap out from your 1970, “state-of-the-art” sleeper car, into one built in the 1950s due to the size of tunnels and other infrastructure!

      Damn, are we THAT STUPID? Obama’s “high speed rail” plan has already juiced some coffers that supported him. The rail that was built has horrible ridership, and was timed to be about as fast as the “ordinary rail” it replaced.

      Go look it up.

      1. James says:

        When I rode Amtrak, it reminded me of something the Soviets would have built during the Cold War.

        When you read the history of Amtrak, “the government’s answer to public cross-country transit”…You’ll see just how many times politicians claimed it would eventually begin making a profit.

        Has it ever made a profit? Get ready to LAUGH OUT LOUD…before you cry when you realize YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT!

        1. James says:

          To swing this mother back to EVs… This is why I get so upset when others believe the government is responsible to build out our fast-charging infrastructure, and not the private sector ( see Tesla Superchargers ).

          When government takes on a task for the common good of all the people, we get crap like Amtrak. When something like Hyperloop is given as a challenge to the private sector – competition results, as it has with Hyperloop…And true victory is realized. It’s evolution. The strongest, best survive. And Obama’s sorry excuse for “High Speed Rail” has been proven to be just another such waste of money.

  26. Scramjett says:

    I’d point out that during the Eisenhower presidency the effective tax rate was about 90% and before “Tax cuttaholic” Reagan came into office, the effective tax rate was 75%. Then I’d be accused of spreading liberal/socialist lies, propaganda and revisionist history. *sigh*

    1. Nix says:

      I wouldn’t call you any of those names if you said that, but I would correct your use of the term “effective tax rate”. I think the term you are looking for is probably “highest tax bracket”, or “top marginal tax rate”.

      Effective tax rate is your total percent of taxes you pay on all of your income. That 90% number you gave were the highest tax brackets, that were charged only on income above $3.4 million for a couple in 2015 dollars. So your first $3.4 Million of income was taxed at less than 90%, but anything over $3.4 Million each year, you paid 90% taxes.

      http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/effectivetaxrate.asp

      I’m pretty sure you know what I’m talking about, and were just focused on some other part of your post and chose the wrong term…

      1. Phr3d says:

        well said, thanks

    2. SparkEV says:

      Before 1913, income tax was 0%, so we should go back to 0% income tax? Why did you pick Ike when effective tax was lower than during Reagan?

      “US historical income tax as share of GDP”
      In 1950’s under Ike, individual income tax was about 7.5% of GDP. In 1980’s under Reagon, it was about 8.5%. That’s only personal income tax; overall tax is even higher percentage of GDP during Reagan yeas. And some guy in comments here who claim to be Republicans want to pay even more!

      1. Nix says:

        That graph is fairly meaningless unless you overlay Tariffs over the top of that graph. Because it isn’t like we didn’t pay taxes before. We just switched how they were collected from Tariffs to income taxes.

        Tariffs hit record highs in the 1930’s, before there was a major shift in the 1940’s to income taxes. That graph only shows half the story, as if we magically didn’t pay for our government until the 1940’s.

        http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html

        1. SparkEV says:

          Oldie, but had to followup. His comment, like much of the superficials on left, is about Ike era 90% income tax rate, nothing about Tariff, etc. As far as individual income taxes go, we paid more during Ike days than Reagan days. I hope the left don’t bring up Ike days in tax argument anymore; it’s just silly.

          I’m all for going back to pre-1913 when federal income tax was 0%. How do we pay for services? It’s up to the fed to figure it out. Maybe they could start with no more perpetual war.

  27. Phr3d says:

    wow, politics Do cause some discussion, huh.. Thanks to all the comments that attempt to offset uhmm.. factually deficient posts.

    ignore button please.. who’da thunk Hillary drives a BMW i3?

    scroll, scroll, scroll the site

  28. Brent says:

    This is absolutely needed. A true CO2 tax would be much better, but if a tax on oil barrels is the best we can do now, then its much better than nothing.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      If the GOP could stop being in complete denial about climate change, a revenue neutral carbon fee would be the way to go. All carbon fuels are charged a fee (coal, oil, gas, etc.) at the source and that all that fee-money is refunded back to the people in some manner (lots different ways to do this . . less income tax, reduce payroll tax, an actual refund to each person, etc.).

      In this manner, there is no new TAX such that Republicans should have no objections to it. All it does is raise the price of fossil fuels thus push people to conserve, be more efficient, and move to non carbon energy sources. If you drive a gas guzzler you will pay more in the fee. If you drive a hybrid you will pay much less. If you drive an electric, you will pay the utility whatever they need to pay for their fuel sources. If you drive an electric that is powered by solar PV, you will pay nothing.

      It would be NON TAX revenue neutral fee system that just incentivizes people to reduce fossil fuel usage, be much more efficient with fossil fuel usage, and incentivize moves away from fossil fuels.

      But the big problem is that Republicans are stuck in the fever swamps of climate conspiracy theory nonsense. Oh no, Agenda 21 is going to make you a commie!

  29. kubel says:

    How about no tax… on anything. 🙂

  30. JACK says:

    Hi This suck. Bye. WE SOUDN:T HAVE TO PAY TAXES TWICE. ONLY MAKE IT ONCE. WHEN WE BUY SOMETHING, OR WHEN WE EARN IT. NOT BOTH