The Times is reporting that special tax breaks that apply to exactly 5 companies, all of whom produce oil, will not be repealed, at least not now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/politics/18congress.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
What the article doesn't make clear is the way the tax break is written, it applies to exactly five companies; the law says that the break is for companies that produce so much oil, have so much revenue, produce so much gas, etc. so that only these five oil companies (BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips) qualify for the breaks. Apparently smaller companies like Marathon or Hess don't qualify for these tax breaks, at least according to an expert who explained the details on the radio this morning.
I completely get the idea that there are times you want to provide incentives for the private sector to do things that are good for the larger society, and I believe that there can be a rational argument made that oil drilling and exploration is one of these things (I wouldn't make it, but I respect the argument.) What I do not get is treating the largest of these companies differently than their smaller competitors and thinking that this is OK. I know, this is SOP in DC, but come on, usually when the light of day shines on the roaches they scurry, or in DC parlance, they're "shocked" and they act to correct the wrong. In this case, the Republicans, are saying, essentially, the biggest of the big deserve a publicly financed competitive advantage. How can this be justified with a straight face?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/politics/18congress.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
What the article doesn't make clear is the way the tax break is written, it applies to exactly five companies; the law says that the break is for companies that produce so much oil, have so much revenue, produce so much gas, etc. so that only these five oil companies (BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips) qualify for the breaks. Apparently smaller companies like Marathon or Hess don't qualify for these tax breaks, at least according to an expert who explained the details on the radio this morning.
I completely get the idea that there are times you want to provide incentives for the private sector to do things that are good for the larger society, and I believe that there can be a rational argument made that oil drilling and exploration is one of these things (I wouldn't make it, but I respect the argument.) What I do not get is treating the largest of these companies differently than their smaller competitors and thinking that this is OK. I know, this is SOP in DC, but come on, usually when the light of day shines on the roaches they scurry, or in DC parlance, they're "shocked" and they act to correct the wrong. In this case, the Republicans, are saying, essentially, the biggest of the big deserve a publicly financed competitive advantage. How can this be justified with a straight face?