Blog - Dems' Oil Subsidy Bill is Unconstitutional 
OpenCongress Blog
Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds
Dems' Oil Subsidy Bill is Unconstitutional
May 17, 2011 - by Donny Shaw
Senate Republicans may be using a faulty argument about gas prices going up if we end oil subsidies as an excuse for protecting some of their biggest corporate donors, but Democrats don’t seem to be taking the issue much more seriously. By bringing up a bill to end subsidies and effectively increase the corporate tax rate on U.S. oil companies, they’re only setting up a campaign talking point, not doing actual policy work. The bill is flat-out unconstitutional, and they know it.
Republicans may have a point that Democrats are playing politics with oil subsidies. To understand why, look no further than the fact that the bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring to the floor for a vote Tuesday evening doesn’t pass basic constitutional muster.
“The question is if the bill passes the Senate, it will run into a blue-slip problem,” Reid said at his weekly Capitol press conference. Blue slipping is the process the House uses to reject Senate bills that impact tax and spending.
Reid joked, “That’s the least of my worries.”
He and most of the Dem caucus couldn’t be happier that their Republican counterparts are circling their wagons around big oil companies to protect their multi-billion dollar annual tax subsidies. And they’ll have great fodder for attack ads starting Tuesday night, when a Senate bill that would rescind those subsidies is expected to fail along party lines.
Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”
Get Blog Updates by Email
Want a simple way to stay on top of what's happening in Congress?
Subscribe to this blog!Send Us a Tip
-
I've been watching a lot of...
Submitted by Robert Schwartzman on Dec 9
-
Proposed Bill HR-2674 Prote...
Submitted by Mary on Jun 16
-
Amendment No. 601 to the Om...
Submitted by Winifred on Mar 3
You can submit a tip anonymously, or attributed to your own name and e-mail, whichever you prefer. Read more about submitting a tip.
Recent Posts
- Endless Blockade for the Senate ... January 25, 2013
- One Year Ago We Killed SOPA -- H... January 18, 2013
- Senate Democrats Looking to End ... January 08, 2013
- Welcome the 113th U.S. Congress:... January 03, 2013
- Secretive Conference Committee F... December 20, 2012
Archives
See All ArchivesBlogroll
- A plain blog about politics
- The Baseline Scenario
- Capital Eye
- The Caucus
- CBO Director's Blog
- Congress Matters
- The Corner
- CREW Blog
- Crooks and Liars
- Jamie Dupree
- Election Law Blog
- FDL News Desk
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hot Air
- Irregular Times
- Little Sis
- Naked Capitalism
- The Moderate Voice
- OMB Watch
- Open House Project
- Party Time
- Plum Line
- Political Animal
- Political Wire
- ProPublica
- Real Clear Politics
- RedState
- Secrecy News
- Sunlight Foundation Blog
- Talking Points Memo
- techPresident
- 2chambers
- Unanimous Consent
- The Weekly Standard
Sort By
Comments
This bill doesn’t technically raise revenues. It rescinds a government spending.
Definition:
A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector.
So they are NOT taking in money; they are reducing pay outs.
Here’s the thing though: oil companies aren’t receiving subsidies. They are receiving tax breaks.
“They are tax breaks. Of the $4 billion in alleged subsidies to Big Oil, $1.7 billion derives from a domestic manufacturing tax deduction intended to keep factories in the U.S. It is available to every company, not just oil companies. Another $850 million comes from another tax provision, also available to every U.S. corporation, that gives a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries—just as you can deduct your state taxes from your federal income taxes. Yet another $1 billion comes from tax rules that let oil companies treat oil in the ground as capital equipment for write-down purposes, and the rest comes from rules that let oil companies write off certain business costs immediately.”
http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/17/the-difference-between-a-tax-b
Spam Comment
I agree with jsimsnewchapter. I don’t believe ending a subsidy is the same as raising revenue. Regardless, an argument could be made either way.
The headline kind of pissed me off. Even the most egregious laws aren’t “Unconstitutional” until a judge declares it so, which obviously hasn’t happened in this case. The whole thing is moot because the House is unlikely to bring up the oil subsidy bill for a vote, let alone pass it. But a simple “may be” added to this headline is probably in order.
Spam Comment
It’s not a subsidy. It’s primarily a tax break for manufacturers. It doesn’t pay the companies. It allows the, to pay less in taxes. Ending the break is synonymous with raising taxes.
Spam Comment
This simile is not right. Congress does not work and earn money, like families do. It raises money by levying taxes. To generate more revenue, Congress raises taxes. Ending a subisidy is raising taxes, since the net result is increasing revenues for the federal government. To argue otherwise is partisan semantics.
If the Republicans introduced legislation to do away with the mortgage tax credit, requiring millions of home owners to pay hundreds of millions in additional taxes per year, would you be on here defending their right to simply end a subsidy? You’d be on here yelling at those tax-hiking SOBs.
If you’re not willing to see things without a partisan lens, you’re not contributing intelligently to the problems of this country.