mediapro

Bill Mandating 25% of U.S. Energy from Renewables by 2025 Introduced in House

Thanks JE.

You know it's odd that at least two people read your comment, but no one has stepped up to the challenge I put out there.

Any bold supply-sider out there ready to refute the four contentions put forward?

Mediapro


On Feb 06 03:49 PM JE wrote:

> Mediapro spoke a lot of truth in a very short space.

Bill Mandating 25% of U.S. Energy from Renewables by 2025 Introduced in House

All of these witty and pithy attempts (snipes) at a reasonable proposal forget about some long-standing energy subsidy preferrences that seem to never pass through the lips of people who can't even wait a month beofre spouting off fromthe same kettle of steam we've heard for most of the past thrity years.

For those and others who only look at what they can tear down tear through this:

1. Our effective cost per gallon of gas is ~$10.00 when one factors in the roughly $30 billion dollars in tax subsidies ANNUALLY provided to the oil and gas industry. This is the most egregious, downscale tax imaginable. Moreover, the oil and gas companies simly need to bid and secure future leases and INTENT to drill for the largess we reap upon them every year. This ponzi scheme against the American taxpayer is one of our dirtiest tax secrets.

The attempted movement away from an oil-based economy is long overdue. Eliminating these subsidies and replacing them with a carbon tax and offsets would be a dandy replacement for current outlays while returning the investment towards modernizing the electrical grid and smart energy technologies. Even an oil guy as purile as T. Boone Pickens has attempted to wake up and smell the coffee.

2. Add to that tax subsidy the protectionist import rules on sugar, milk, etc. Removing sugar tariffs alone and replacing this supply with a much more efficient cane sugar ethanol source could end the corn producer/fertilizer manufacturers stranglehold on the taxpayer's neck. If one wants to make the small farmer argument, then set resdiency, gross receipts and size requirements on farm subsidies. This reward for planting inefficient crop supply and for NOT PLANTING crops drawfs even the oil subsidies.

3. For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the offshore accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax code by those who can afford tax attorneys, don't be so quick to condemn the extra pittance through earned income tax credits and such put into the pockets of those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system. Look where that system of rewards has put us.

4. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$100 K cap on wage contributions to Social Security? Are you considering that tax subsidy when you make your observations on energy conservation mandates and stimulus investment?

How You Can Invest in the Pickens Plan

This plan is a fascinating combination of existing technology.

While, I agree with the sentiments of "mertenfam" and "user 199792", I must respond to one comment by "Breadnight".

Pickens is very clear about the initial thrust of natural gas usage and vehicle conversion. If you read the full plan, he takes the Port of Long Beach model for converting heavy equipment and eventually the highway trucking system as the most reasonable, short-term (10 year) solution to converting electricity generation from natural gas and shifting that supply to the heavy equipment users. Unless there is a rush by auto manufacturers or passenger engine re-tooling and scads of refueling stations (neither very likely within this frame), there should be a modest uptick in nat gas demand, but the shift in power generation usage to wind would more than likely offset extremes in the gas market.