Inactivity Tax
What's our poor President and his Democrat brethren to do when they have taxed virtually every activity possible?
You guessed it; start taxing INACTIVITY. Brilliant!
If you thought their decision to impose levies on those who opt not to purchase health insurance was a metaphorical toe dip into the 'inactivity tax' pool, hit yourself really hard for being so utterly naive. Obama just did a full on Triple Lindy that would make Rodney Dangerfield proud.
Yep, he's proposing to tax energy companies for NOT drilling.
The socialist judge gives it a perfect 10.
Our Anti-Capitalist-n-Chief wants to slap a $4-per-acre charge on existing leases that are not currently producing any oil or gas.
The rub, of course, is that many of those inactive leases are not producing because they are caught in the Obama administration's regulatory labyrinth—designed to make it nearly impossible to poke a hole in the ground—all while the President duplicitously tells the unwashed masses that he is for more drilling.
Shell Oil is but one example. They recently had to walk away from a $3 billion lease investment—all spent on navigating regulatory red tape—after Obama's EPA yanked an air quality permit in response to a lawsuit against the project by environmental activists. To seal Shell's fate, the EPA refused to provide any guidance as to how the oil company could regain approval. Mission accomplished.
Need another example? How about the 77 oil and gas leases in Utah the administration canceled immediately after taking office in 2009, or the 61 they reneged on in Montana a year later? Think that might have had a chilling effect on the industry?
Barry's bizzaro inactivity tax rationale is that energy companies are purposely juicing prices by choosing not to drill. That's his story and he's sticking to it. Too bad a guy from Chicago is clueless about the Chicago school of economics. Rollover Friedman.
Don't ya think there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of energy producers, large and small, lining up to drill if only the regulatory climate were rational and predictable, particularly given current prices? The Libs keep screeching about egregious oil company profits. Too bad the profit-seeking activity necessary to solve or at least mitigate the problem is being stifled by the government. No such thing as a win-win in Obamaland. Apparently it's better for multitudes to suffer than allow evil corporations to pursue their (and society's) economic self-interest.
And oh by the way, according to the Congressional Research Service (CSR), the U.S. has the largest
combined energy resources in the world. In fact, so large that without even including shale oil deposits, our resources are greater than Saudi Arabia's, China's, and Canada's—combined.
But, according to the Dems, we'd accrue practically zero benefit from exploiting some or all of our fossil fuel options while we transition over the next few decades to renewables. If you think that makes sense, be sure to vote Democrat in 2012...then go have yourself checked.
What's the next inactivity tax?
If you're an Obama fan, better hope its on registered Dems who are contemplating sitting out the next election.
One thing is certain...the only inactivity tax he'll never propose is one targeted at those committed to living off the government's largesse.
You guessed it; start taxing INACTIVITY. Brilliant!
If you thought their decision to impose levies on those who opt not to purchase health insurance was a metaphorical toe dip into the 'inactivity tax' pool, hit yourself really hard for being so utterly naive. Obama just did a full on Triple Lindy that would make Rodney Dangerfield proud.
Yep, he's proposing to tax energy companies for NOT drilling.
The socialist judge gives it a perfect 10.
Our Anti-Capitalist-n-Chief wants to slap a $4-per-acre charge on existing leases that are not currently producing any oil or gas.
The rub, of course, is that many of those inactive leases are not producing because they are caught in the Obama administration's regulatory labyrinth—designed to make it nearly impossible to poke a hole in the ground—all while the President duplicitously tells the unwashed masses that he is for more drilling.
Shell Oil is but one example. They recently had to walk away from a $3 billion lease investment—all spent on navigating regulatory red tape—after Obama's EPA yanked an air quality permit in response to a lawsuit against the project by environmental activists. To seal Shell's fate, the EPA refused to provide any guidance as to how the oil company could regain approval. Mission accomplished.
Need another example? How about the 77 oil and gas leases in Utah the administration canceled immediately after taking office in 2009, or the 61 they reneged on in Montana a year later? Think that might have had a chilling effect on the industry?
Barry's bizzaro inactivity tax rationale is that energy companies are purposely juicing prices by choosing not to drill. That's his story and he's sticking to it. Too bad a guy from Chicago is clueless about the Chicago school of economics. Rollover Friedman.
Don't ya think there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of energy producers, large and small, lining up to drill if only the regulatory climate were rational and predictable, particularly given current prices? The Libs keep screeching about egregious oil company profits. Too bad the profit-seeking activity necessary to solve or at least mitigate the problem is being stifled by the government. No such thing as a win-win in Obamaland. Apparently it's better for multitudes to suffer than allow evil corporations to pursue their (and society's) economic self-interest.
And oh by the way, according to the Congressional Research Service (CSR), the U.S. has the largest
combined energy resources in the world. In fact, so large that without even including shale oil deposits, our resources are greater than Saudi Arabia's, China's, and Canada's—combined.
But, according to the Dems, we'd accrue practically zero benefit from exploiting some or all of our fossil fuel options while we transition over the next few decades to renewables. If you think that makes sense, be sure to vote Democrat in 2012...then go have yourself checked.
What's the next inactivity tax?
If you're an Obama fan, better hope its on registered Dems who are contemplating sitting out the next election.
One thing is certain...the only inactivity tax he'll never propose is one targeted at those committed to living off the government's largesse.
Indeed the inactivity tax is ludicrous, because the market is dictating where the drilling makes financial sense. It is happening in North Dakota and Montana right now. During my recent trip to Gillette, WY located on the edge of the Powder River Basin, I got a lessen on the amount of recoverable oil in the Bakken Formation. The USGS low balls the recoverable oil at 3-4 billion barrels while other estimates range from 175 to 660 billion barrels - and more that reach into Canada. Our very own Saudi-sized reserve. By end of 2010 there were 166 active rigs producing over 342,000 barrels per day, and the oil drillers are just warming up. It cost $20-$40 per barrel for the horizontal drilling, which makes financial sense when averaging per barrel value over the last 5 years. I haven't found any instances where Obama touts the opportunity in the Bakken. Don't need to tax inactivity, just need the government's oft-times ridiculous regulatory rules to be reasonable - that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. For example, a Fed regulation requires the coal mining operators in Gillette, WY to add sage brush into the grasses as they perform reclamation work on the mined out areas, increasing the cost of the coal operator's reclamation work. However, the nearby ranchers are compensated by another Fed organization for removing sage brush from their land because it makes the ranches more efficient for cattle grazing - cattle don't eat sage brush. Obama could spend his time more productively by aligning regulation with the country's goal of energy independence.
Reply to this
Good points all. Obama simply has no concept of getting the government out of the way and allowing natural market dynamics to play out.
Reply to this