- Family removed from Southwest flight over tweet about rude agent, dad says
- Michael Bloomberg thumbs FAA ban, plots course to Israel
- California bans full-contact football practices in off-season
- Thune: Downed fighter jets show more evidence of separatist capabilities
- Obama tells DNC fundraising crowd: ‘I’m not overly partisan’
- Chambliss: Downed jet ultimately goes back to Putin
- Perdue strategy: Run against Reid, Obama, Pelosi
- White House: More changes to contraception mandate coming
- ‘Operation Normandy’ set to send 3,500 volunteers to border to ‘stop an invasion’
- Netanyahu’s spokesman: Safe to fly to Israel
OWENS: The politics of disaster
Obama angles to turn Gulf oil spill to his advantage
Question of the Day
The Gulf of Mexico oil-rig explosion in April is the source of the most extensive environmental disaster in the nation's history. Untold quantities of crude oil have spilled into the Gulf, affecting the economic and ecological well-being of several states.
But the government's response has been focused less on ending the crisis in the Gulf and more on using the disaster to advance a particular agenda. As President Obama stated during his June Oval Office address, the Gulf crisis offers an incentive to end "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels."
In pursuit of this agenda, the Obama administration seems intent on creating a fuel shortage designed to raise energy prices for Americans in order to "save the environment" while enabling a transition to "green" energy sources. One thing is certain: This agenda will indeed raise energy costs.
The administration's initial step in pursuit of this agenda was to impose a moratorium on further offshore drilling. When a federal court threw out the original ban as arbitrary (a ruling upheld on appeal), the administration issued a new one that banned drilling from floating rigs. This exacerbates the economic situation in the Gulf and ensures that many rigs will be moved to overseas locations. In addition, the moratorium will cost the country 200,000 to 340,000 barrels per day of output next year, reducing total U.S. production 20 percent by 2015.
As economically dysfunctional as the moratorium may be, many energy experts are more concerned about the impact of pending tax increases. The administration wants to raise taxes on oil companies by $4 billion a year, mainly by rescinding tax incentives that have been around for years and that in many cases apply to industries other than oil and gas as well.
In addition, proposed legislation would raise oil-industry taxes by another $20 billion. Any so-called carbon taxes that have been proposed as part of a "cap-and-trade" bill would be extra. These taxes would hurt domestic oil production, resulting in the loss of thousands of existing jobs, preventing the creation of new ones and increasing foreign oil dependence.
Many of these proposals are based on the claim that the oil and gas industry receives special breaks that are not available to other sectors of the U.S. economy. But consider these facts: The oil and gas industry generates 7.5 percent of the country's annual gross domestic product (GDP), provides 9.2 million jobs and provides $550 billion in labor income. Meanwhile, it is far from undertaxed, having paid about $180 billion to federal and state treasuries in 2007-08.
Critics of the oil and gas industry argue that fossil-fuel producers benefit from a tax deduction of 9 percent of qualified income from oil and gas produced in the United States. But this is a deduction that applies to all sectors of the U.S. economy. And beginning this year, the deduction for the oil and gas industry will fall to 6 percent.
Indeed, the tax burden of the oil and gas industry is higher than for manufacturing firms in the United States. Income-tax expenses (as a share of net income before taxes) for oil and gas is 53.2 percent. For manufacturing, it is 32.2 percent. Because many U.S. oil and gas firms operate globally, they often pay more taxes in the United States than they receive in U.S.-generated revenue.
For the oil industry, a combination of higher taxes and a continuing moratorium on deep-water drilling is an incentive to move rigs overseas. It also will lead to increased reliance on foreign oil, a loss of jobs and revenue and higher consumer costs.
MacKubin Owens is associate dean and professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and is a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) in Philadelphia.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
Retailer pays a price for getting too close to Obama
Get Breaking Alerts
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- Two Ukrainian fighter jets shot down
- HURT: The cost of 'free' water in Detroit
- David Perdue defeats Jack Kingston in Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives