The important thing is to get away from dependence on Saudi oil and all the risks associated with it. None of the other stuff matters very much.

Use natural gas – made in the USA !

Right now we are slaves to the Opec oil countries. We need this bill passed! If every new eighteen wheeler used natural gas we could cut Opec in half, and we could say hey Middle East, we don’t need you any more. I mean talk about this economic recovery in the US, this would be great for us, how can you be opposed this this bill?

While I agree with getting away from foreign sources for energy consumption in America, I disagree with this bill and here is why. The free market (which by the way is what gave this country a middle class) solution is the only common sense way out of foreign oil. The government (all levels) needs to back off and get out of the way of investors and entrepeneurs. We as a nation can not afford to give incentives by way of tax credits to ANY business or individual. When bills impose a rule, regulation and or law on the people it becomes a burden to the people. This is nothing more than our elected officials picking what businesses will be winners in our country. America was founded because this is what England was doing to the colonies in the 1700’s, giving special treatment(tax credits)to products that came direct from England and passing the cost onto the colonies. Special interest(certain businesses)and money should not rule over the people.

No good reason to single out support for natural gas specifically if the goal was to get off foreign oil.

I would say that, unfortunately, rules/regulations/laws are required to maintain a free market. I’m not saying all economic laws are alright for that reason, but I think it’s unfair to say that all laws are burdens to people and markets.

Thanks “BIGMOUTHMOM” I am agree with you!!!

Totally agree BIGMOUTHMOM.

Then, we should do away with all corporate welfare. That is not going to happen. No wind, no solar, no nuclear, no electricity for rural America. No Railroads. Want correct History? No Suez canal. These tax credits in this bill is for five years to change an entire industry or two (RV). The intent is to place a momentum shift away from OPEC dependency. Five years is nothing, and the five billion is nothing compared to the sixty years of involvement in the Persian Gulf. We cannot afford to keep sending our Armed forces over there every few years, just cannot do it, because we cannot afford it. For the money, this is a worth wild investment.

With this bill I see jobs, independence and revolution. Regulation is necessary, unfortunately. People, corporations and even some or our politicians are greedy and practice unfairly when the opportunity exsist. Tax credits are also necessary when changing an industry. What we don’t need is corporate welfare. If they make a profit then they pay the tax. Government can’t run without it. That is the very reason we are in the shape we are in today wih the debt we owe now. If corps. paid their fair share we wouldn’t be in debt. Pay it and move on. And if you should think we don’t need government? Then you’re a fool. Of course government is necessary. Otherwise you’d have slavery, which isn’t far away with unemployment being what it is and corporations not wanting to pay taxes nor a living wage. And it won’t matter what race or gender you are. The fact of the matter is, when your population grows so does your government. Get over it.

I agree with you, and I sure hope you are as passionate about removing the existing tax breaks from oil and coal companies as you are about preventing these (much smaller) ones.

That last comment by me was directed to bigmouthmom’s comments, I wish these were threaded comments…

This appears to me to be an expensive, short-term “Boone-doggle.” It requires us to install expensive infrastructure to allow the shift from petroleum to natural gas, which does nothing to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere by our transportation network.

If you’ve not seen the documentary, “Gasland,”

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

take the time to watch it and then think about the consequences of increasing our demand for natural gas, the wastage of fresh water, the aquifer contamination, and the methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas)leaks, all consequences of fracking. It is no wonder that the Cheney/Halliburton Energy Bill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

contained the “Halliburton Loophole.” Don’t give them more excuses to “frack America now.”

baumgrenze

Although I am in favor of this bill, my expectations for passage are minimal. Follow the money. Opposers to Supporters are about $4 to $1. The individuals receiving most of the monies are Republicans, even though the Bill’s sponsor is a Republican. (Please note: I lean very much on the Conservative side.)
The powers that be are highly opposed to this bill. Frankly that should be viewed as a positive for passage.

We talk about Corporate Welfare. Why? Our companies compete against companies from around the world, including China. All of the companies in China receive public funds. All of them. If you want to have companies based in America you must rethink your adhorance to “Corporate Welfare”.

This Bill will help to keep US $‘s in the US. That’s a really good thing.

Not surprising that the top contributor to Mr. Sullivan’s campaigns is the oil & gas industry.

I have a few concerns about this bill, perhaps someone who knows more about this stuff can help to alleviate them. First of all, as I understand it natural gas is just as bad for the environment as petroleum gas. The switch would certainly not be beneficial environmentally. Second of all, would we really be saving money in the long run by switching to natural gas? I don’t see how natural gas would be less expensive or better for the economy, there is corporate greed whether it is petroleum or natural gas that is the necessary commodity. It seems like a lot of money to be spending on trying to get people to use natural gas when it doesn’t do much good for the environment or for the economy (that I can imagine). It’s as if someone picked up drinking to help them get over their smoking habit. I think it would be better for the economy and the environment to just end our dependence.

The official text of the bill is pretty useless for understanding what the bill actually does. I can see that it will add a semicolon to section xyz of the Internal Revenue Code but what does that accomplish.

The summary provided by the Congressional Research Office over on govTrak doesn’t shed much light either.

Is there any reliable non partisan source for a layman’s version of the Bill?

FYI

There is a fairly readable summary of HR 1380 that was produced by the Joint Tax Committee for hearings that took place in Sept. 2011.

Here’s a link http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4360 that will get you a pdf of the document.

Part III of the document concentrates on HR 1380.

Can anyone tell me. Has anything happened to this bill lately? Is there any chance of it comming up for a vote?