Captain Obvious: Big Oil Subsidies are Spending, Not Taxes

Grover Norquist--the unelected lobbyist--wields all the power in the GOP Congress. For whatever reason, this odd man has managed to get most, if not all of them to sign his "no new taxes" pledge. I guess the poor little feller got his heart broken when George H.W. Bush broke his pledge. So, good for Grover. Why anyone feels bound by this useless document is anyone's guess.

But okay. Let's say that "no new taxes" is a good, sound, logical idea (just go with me). It would mean not creating any taxes that don't exist right now, right? No. According to Norquist, getting rid of loopholes is a "new tax." Getting rid of subsidies is a "new tax." The former is a stretch, the latter is just wrong.

The oil and gas industries are the most profitable companies to exist in human history.* They get multi-billion dollar government subsidies. These are essentially checks. Payments. Say it with me, "Spending." The GOP (and Norquist) say that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. I don't agree, but let's say they're right. Okay, take every subsidy that can't be vigorously defended as essential, and zero it out. Those are spending cuts, not tax cuts. They're exactly what John Boner Boehner and Mitch McConnell are asking for, they just don't know it. Maybe someone should explain it to Grover Norquist.

* And FYI for Grover, "profits" are the dollars that are left over after you pay for everything. I've heard it said that they need this money for the exploration, extraction, refining. . .no. That's accounted for.