I received a constituent email from Congressman David Schweikert. It states, “I voted for H.R. 1230, a measure that overturned the Administration’s blocking of oil and natural gas lease sales.”

What he didn’t tell me, and the other constituents on his email list, was that a yes vote on H.R.1230 also meant the continuation of federal subsidies to oil companies, estimated to be between $2.7 billion to $4 billion annually.

The oil industry is currently the most profitable business in the world. While much of the economy has been in shambles, they have reaped astounding profits over the past 10 years. Their profits during this past quarter alone were the highest on record. Why, then, would the federal government need to subsidize oil companies?

Eighty-two percent of the Democrats in the House voted no on the bill because they couldn’t find a reason for the subsidies to continue. But Congressman Schweikert, and all but a handful of Republicans, voted to continue giving billions in subsidies to oil companies. Didn’t Schweikert and his fellow Republicans pass the Ryan budget cutting education and destroying Medicare due to a lack of funds? I think the congressman and his fellow Republicans have some explaining to do.

(4) comments

JeanWenus
JeanWenus

What Frank doesn't tell you is that after taking his orders from liberal activists with a political spike to burn and no disregard to the facts, we can know this:

Today, the Democrat agenda of more government and higher spending has come crashing to a halt, with even NPR stating that Social Security and Medicare on on the brink of collapse.

While true fighters like Dave Schweikert are trying to fix the situation, the Democrats want to play games and score political points.

Frank's refusal to be honest about the numbers shows one thing and one thing only. He is a political operative who thinks that spreading political garbage in the Foothills news will make him popular among his collectivist friends.

Man up to the numbers Frank. Because once you start being honest and listening to the kinds of fights Schweikert is waging in the House, then you'll have something to be proud of.

JeanWenus
JeanWenus

I mean Fred. I have an uncle named Frank and accidentally wrote Frank.

Fred, I'm sorry I got your name wrong. But I'm even more sorry that you are picking fights that will inevitably send our country into flames of dishonest rhetoric.

BKents
BKents

Fred, you cannot be serious. First, these are not subsidies, they are tax breaks that all corporations receive. Maybe study the industry a bit before you start castigating Congressman Schweikert’s votes. He knows what he is doing, and unlike your contribution (disguised as a constituent email) here is how the “subsidies” or “tax breaks” break down: Domestic manufacturing tax deduction-$1.7billion (designed to keep jobs in the US); Percentage depletion allowance-$1b (the cost of capital equipment); Foreign tax credit-$850m (companies get credit for paying taxes to other countries); Intangible drilling costs-$780m (a tax write off as part of the cost of doing business).

Exxon paid 42% of income before taxes in the 1st quarter of this year—that is $8billion. And what did they do with their “windfall” profits (liberals love to put a bumper sticker phrase on everything they don’t understand just to confuse everyone else)? They invested $7.8 billion into capital and exploration!
Well the Obama administration is going to subsidize one company—yes, Petrobras, invested in by George Soros and Brazil’s state-owned oil company! And this “subsidy” is for Petrobras to drill in the Gulf, where we can’t, and create jobs for Brazilian’s but not us and send tax dollars to Brazil’s economy, not ours. I hope I have done some explaining to you Fred.

Marine Mom in AZ
Marine Mom in AZ

Once again President Obama is “leading from behind” and Republicans in congress such as Rep. David Schweikert are doing the heavy lifting and getting results. Want proof? Today our president, obviously feeling the pressure from rising gas prices, has asked his administration to increase America’s oil production by extending leases in the Gulf of Mexico and allowing more frequent lease sales in Alaska.

The Republicans, including Rep. David Schweikert, forced Obama’s hand and our president had no choice but to appear as if he wants to expand oil production in the United States. Of course, pay attention to what Obama is doing, rather than what he is saying. What Obama is proposing today has nothing to do with new drilling. It is all about extensions of existing leases—extensions which were supposed to have taken place LAST YEAR.

Rep. David Schweikert and the Republicans are leading. President Obama is along for the ride.

And about those “subsidies.” Fred didn’t mention President Obama’s move to subsidize Petrobras. Didn't Obama give the semi-public Brazilian multinational energy company $2 billion dollars? And Fred is complaining about American companies getting a $4 billion break? And what about all those billions of dollars (actual cash subsidies!) going towards Obama’s preferred green energies?

These so called oil company "subsidies” are actually tax breaks which incentivize exploration. Oil is the most heavily regulated and taxed industry on the planet. The industry also has the most intensive capital requirements to stay operational. Ending oil company incentives will merely punish the very companies we need to get us out of this mess. Even worse, those costs will be passed onto us, the consumers. Is that what Americans really want?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.