Tag Archives: taxes

Some Notes on Energy Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some data taken from the US Energy Information Administration’s report Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010.

The following table is excerpted from the EIA report’s Table ES4, and it shows the amount of subsidy that each energy source received along with the per centage of the total of nearly $12 billion in subsidies handed out that each energy source received.

2010 Total (millions)

Share of Total Subsidies and Support
oal $1,189 10.0%
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids $654 5.5%
Nuclear $2,499 21.0%
Renewables $6,560 55.3%
    Biomass $114 1.0%
    Geothermal $200 1.7%
    Hydropower $215 1.8%
    Solar $968 8.2%
    Wind $4,986 42.0%
    Unallocated
Renewables		 $75 0.6%
Transmission and Distribution $971 8.2%
Total $11,873 100%

 

This table, excerpted from the report’s Table ES5, gives an indication of the relative amount of energy we taxpayers are receiving for our subsidy.

Share of 2010 Generation (percent)
Coal 44.9%
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 25.0%
Nuclear 19.6%
Renewables 10.3%
    Biomass Power 1.4%
    Geothermal 0.4%
    Hydroelectric 6.2%
    Solar 0.0%
    Wind 2.3%
Total 100.0%

 

Notice that: coal, natural gas, and oil get 15.5% of the total subsidies while producing nearly 70% of our nation’s energy; renewables get over 55% of the subsidies and produce just 10% of our energy.

As the Wall Street Journal tells us that DoE, which owns the EIA,

…warned that “Focusing on a single year’s data does not capture the imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years” for other energy sources.

Of course.  Because if we did consider such things, we’d have to notice that renewable energy subsidies have been costing taxpayers for 40 years—since the ’70s—with next to nothing to show for it.

“Get rid of the subsidies for the fat-cat oil and gas companies,” says Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.  Ignoring the snide tone of his remark (albeit paraphrased by me), I agree—get rid of the oil and gas company subsidies.  Get rid of the alternative energy subsidies, too.  If the (renewable) energy industry cannot survive in the market on its own, this simply demonstrates that the industry isn’t ready for the market.

At least the oil and gas and coal companies, with their subsidies, are generating actual electricity, though: look at solar—it’s getting 8% of the total subsidies handed out, and generating no electricity (can you say, “Solyndra?”).  Not a watt, except for rounding error to get to that zero.

“Ryan Budget” in a Nutshell

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a summary of the budget that the Progressives have begun demagoguing the moment Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WI) was asked to run for Vice President.

  • The latest full-scale version of the plan, unveiled in March, vows to cut spending by $5 trillion over the next decade, compared against President Obama’s plan.
  • The plan would, a decade from now, give seniors the option of taking a government payment to purchase health insurance. That payment could be used to buy a private insurance plan, or go toward the traditional Medicare plan. The plan calls for extra assistance to help low-income beneficiaries and those with “greater health risks.”
  • The plan would overhaul Medicaid by turning it into a block grant system for states.
  • The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax brackets — 10 percent and 25 percent.
  • The plan would head off the scheduled automatic defense cuts, first by diverting the planned $55 million defense cut in 2013 by implementing those cuts elsewhere.
  • The plan vows to bring the size of government to 20 percent of GDP by 2015.

Of what are the Progressives so terrified in this budget?  Ryan put his finger on it two years ago in the summary paragraph of his Wall Street Journal op-ed, reprinted by the WSJ over the weekend:

The contrast with our budget couldn’t be clearer: We put our trust in citizens, not government.  Our budget returns power to individuals, families and communities.  It draws inspiration from the Founders’ belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Protecting this right means trusting citizens, not nameless government officials, to decide what is in their best interests and make the right choice about our nation’s future.

With the people in charge, Progressives won’t have anything to do.

What’s Their Plan?

Posted on by
Reply

What is Democratic Party’s plan, exactly, for getting our country out of its debt hole, out of its economic hole that’s deepening that debt hole and ruining individual American lives?  What is Barack Obama’s plan?

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and his supporters out-raised Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama and his supporters last month by $100 million to $75 million, marking the third straight month the Republican candidate has out-raised the Democratic candidate.

In response, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out the following, more in support of the Democratic Presidential candidate than any Democratic Congressional candidate:

BREAKING NEWS: Mitt Romney and the Republicans brought in a whopping $101 million in July.

You and I both know that Mitt Romney will sell America out if he becomes President — giving more tax breaks to his Big Oil and billionaire backers.

The only way we can stop them is to close this fundraising gap – starting today.

Please do your part — make a donation of $3 or more right now to back up President Obama with a Democratic majority.

The reality is simple: If Mitt can bury us under a wave of corporate special interest cash, we will lose in November.

But if everyone who’s been waiting to give pitches in a few dollars, we can start closing the gap today.

http://dccc.org/Close-The-Gap

Thanks for all you do,

Robby

Robby Mook
DCCC Executive Director

Well.  I guess, being a poor, dumb conservative, I just don’t understand.  What was that Democratic Party plan, again?

The Obama Debt Plan

Posted on by
Reply

John Hinderaker, of Power Line, commented on President Obama’s plan to pay down the national debt, as demonstrated by Obama’s mid-year budget plan update.  Obama also is campaigning on his plan to “pay down the debt in a balanced way.”

Here’s what his “balanced plan” does to our national debt, illustrated by the following graph from Power Line, and The Washington Times.

That’s a rather startling increase in the size of this paid-down debt.  “But wait,” some of you might object.  “What about the debt as a per cent of our GDP, a perhaps better way to assess the size of our debt?”

Our 2011 GDP was some $15 trillion, and it’s projected to be in the neighborhood of $24 trillion by 2021 (my calculation based on data in Table 1-6 of the CBO’s report “Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021.”

That makes our national debt 98.7% of GDP in 2011, and 105.8% of GDP by 2021.  This is how Obama intends to “pay down the debt in a balanced way” via Obamanomics’ New Math.

Fun Facts with Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Some of this is old hat, but it’s worth reviewing, and some of this is relatively new.  All courtesy of Ari Fleischer in a recent Wall Street Journal piece.

[T]he only group in America paying at least a “fair share” is the top 20%—people who make more than $74,000. For everyone else, the tax code is a bargain.

This figure shows the rest of that breakout—who earns and who pays:

Note that: 60% of the income-receiving population, those bottom 3 quintiles, are just that—receiving, while paying far less in taxes.

Additionally, the trend is toward greater concentration of tax payments into fewer earners—greater unfairness.  The CBO’s “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009” report makes this plain.

In 1979, the top 20% made 44.9% of the nation’s income and paid 55.3% of all federal taxes.  By 2009, the top 20% had risen to 50.8% of the nation’s income while their share of federal taxes paid had risen further, to 67.9%.

That’s a 13% increase in income and a 23% increase in federal tax “share.”  Meanwhile,

In 1979, the bottom 20% paid 2.1% of the federal taxes.  In 2009, their share of taxes has shrunk to 0.3%.

In 1979, middle-income earners ($34,900 to $50,100) paid 13.6% of all federal taxes.  In 2009 they paid 9.4%.

Hmm….