Clinton says Obama voted for oil firm tax breaks- & CBO says she's right & "Factcheck" wrong

[papau]

Clinton says Obama voted for oil firm tax breaks

PITTSBURGH, March 14 (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton on Friday renewed her attack on oil company profits and accused Sen. Barack Obama, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, of supporting tax breaks for oil companies.

snip

Citing Exxon Mobil Corp's latest annual profit of $40 billion, Clinton said that as president, she would require oil companies to invest in alternative forms of energy or else be subject to a windfall profits tax.

snip

Development of alternative energy sources and the promotion of energy independence could generate 5 million new jobs in the next 10 years, she added.

snip

"You will not catch me as your president holding hands with the Saudis," she said. "I will be holding them accountable."

http://www.reuters.com/article/ELECTU/idUSN1463892520080315?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112


Now fact Check says Hillary is wrong - that there were more tax increases on oil ompanies than tax decreases in the 2005 Energy Bill - but - irony of the day - "Factcheck" is wrong. indeed the CRC DOES NOT SAY WHAT FACT CHECK SAYS THEY SAY:
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?NLEid=509
The House and Senate have approved the conference report on H.R. 6, which provides for a net energy tax cut of $11.5 billion ($14.5 billion gross energy tax cuts, less $3 billion of energy taxes). This bill was signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The tax reconciliation bill recently signed by the President includes relatively minor tax increases on major integrated oil companies through a slowing down of the amortization of some oil and gas exploration costs.
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/06may/IB10054.pdf = ACTUAL CRC REPORT


http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects. The loan guarantees were called “one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation” by Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste; the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.

Since arriving on Capitol Hill, Obama has been as assiduous as any member of Congress in promoting ethanol. He has introduced a number of measures that benefit the industry—such as the “Obama Amendment” that offered oil companies a 50 percent tax credit for building stations that offer E85 fuel—and voted for the corporate-welfare-laden 2005 energy bill, which offered billions in subsidies to ethanol producers as well as lavish incentives for developing cars that run on alternative fuels.

ADM has apparently not contributed money to Obama, but during his first year in office he traveled on the company’s private jets at least twice. All told, Obama took twenty-three flights on corporate planes; after some atypically bad press for accepting the flights, Obama imposed a ban at his office on privately subsidized travel.


(From CBO data)
Exxon and the rest of the energy companies a get a piece of what CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that the legislation would reduce revenues by $7.9 billion over the 2005-2010 period and by $12.3 billion over the 2005-2015 period. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase net revenues by $75 million in 2006. The bill also could affect governmental receipts and direct spending by establishing and increasing certain civil and criminal penalties. CBO estimates that any resulting increase in receipts and spending would be less than $500,000 annually
summarized
* $4.3 billion for nuclear power
* $2.8 billion for fossil fuel production
* $2.7 billion to extend the renewable electricity production credit
* $1.6 billion in tax incentives for investments in clean coal facilities
* $1.3 billion for conservation and energy efficiency
* $1.3 billion for alternative motor vehicles and fuels (ethanol, methane, liquified natural gas, propane)

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Yup.

[bhikkhu]

2. Fact check is still right - you are misreading

This is right there in the information you just posted.

There are those 10+ billion in tax breaks as you say for the energy industry as a whole. But what Hillary referred to was specifically the Oil industry. For the Oil industry there are 2.8 billion or so in breaks, and 3 billion in new taxes, as everyone has kept saying. So a net tax increase on the oil industry.

The remainder of the large package of tax breaks (which I am not particularly thrilled with in any case) refers to other elements of the energy sector, as you have listed.

Again, fact check appears to be correct, and everything is right there.