From Politico:
PICKENS PICKS UP SUPPORTERS — Oklahoma Republican John Sullivan says more than 200 businesses have signed onto his statement urging Congress to pass legislation (H.R. 1380) that would codify T. Boone Pickens’s plan to use federal funds to subsidize natural gas vehicles, including Chrysler, UPS and Apache. Conservative groups have convinced more than a dozen House members to drop their sponsorships of the bill, but 183 members have elected to keep their names on it. The statement and list: http://1.usa.gov/kEa6y6
I ran into a senior aide to a Republican Member in the past week who told me that Pickens claimed to his boss “I bought this bill!” The next day the Member in question then volunteered to me that he was indeed on the receiving end of the outburst.
If Pickens can buy a bill…Can the PEOPLE buy a balanced budget ammendment? How about TERM LIMITs??? Can we pay to close something like the dept. of Energy?? or Fat Ed, Madcows And “Tingles” mouths ???
There’s an idea. Maybe the American people can get together to hire lobbyists so we can have some representation in Washington too.
I don’t have a problem with converting our vehicles to Nat Gas (along with drilling our own resources) to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But why does the government have to pay for it? If it’s a viable alternative, it will stand on it’s own or fail on it’s own. That’s how a capitalist system works. and private industry can work much more efficient than government.
How much government money did Edison get for inventing electricity usage? None if I remember right. Ditto Bell, Whitney, Ford, Gates, etc etc. If it’s economically viable and there is a demand, there is no need for government interference.
“But why does the government have to pay for it? If it’s a viable alternative, it will stand on it’s own or fail on it’s own.”
– - – - -
But if the government pays for it through subsidies, the government can set up all sorts of stringent conditions that essentially force manufacturers and buyers into buying the products and/or services of specific suppliers that are Friends of Obama. The free market allows for competition based on satisfaction of a buyer’s wants and needs, which doesn’t do beans for directing society’s money into the Correct Hands.
This is why government thinks that making something cost $20,000 extra through regulation, but then giving you a $20,000 tax credit, is better than simply watching from the sidelines. When they have control over the transaction, it’s much easier for them to steal your money.
LNG vehicals have been around for decades now. If Mr. Pickens thinks there is a business case for the expansion of their use, let him invest his own money. I might even be willing to invest some of mine. But not through taxation and government favoritism.
He did invest his own money. The true American way. He bought several members of Congress to block his competitors.
After Weiner, perhaps we should forgo using the terms “Member” or “Member of Congress” for awhile.
Actually, I was thinking that Weiner has done us all a great service by reminding us just what a Member of Congress really is.
I would like the people to buy a 2% per year reduction in the debt ceiling.
That would mean:
1. No more borrowing
2. Massive cuts
3. Reduction in entitlements
4. Growth oriented tax policy
For massive cuts, I would suggest we start with
Dept of Agriculture (especially post “Pigford”)
ATF (esp. post “Gunwalker”)
Dept of Ed
Center for Disease Control
We can work on HUD after that.
How about we just stop funding the various NGO’s?
Then, we can winnow out the GO’s, such as Amtrak, USPS, etc.
When all of that is said and done, the real money can be saved by closing agencies that create chaos, instead of settling it:
EPA, ATF, DEA, NLRB, TSA, FAA, FCC, etc, etc.
Then, you get to the BIG BOYS:
Education, Energy, Labor, Commerce, HUD, HHS, and every-one’s perennial favorite, DHS!
Unfortunately, the United States Postal Service IS a constitutional Agency. One of the “needful things” mentioned for government expenditures if Postal Roads and services.
LOOK it up if you don’t believe it
I suspect the purpose of Pickens’ Nat. Gas vehicles project is to prevent the rapid development of Fischer Tropf like processes for conversion of coal or natural gas to synthetic fuel.
Look through the fine print for now. Normally the purpose of a bill like that is to mislead, with the real purpose buried, or added in conference committee.
More investment socialism. For shame.
I’m sick and tired of paying taxes so gazillionaires can use my money to make more money for themselves.
That was pretty much Picken’s attitude when he and Mesa Petroleum were based in Amarillo, TX. When he left, the local paper made a giant sign saying “Goodbye, Boone” and hung it on the front of the building.
Let’s do some math. Last month we spent $41.6 billion on imported oil. For the sake of simplicity, we’ll carve that down to $30 billion. If we multiply that $30 billion for the whole year, you’re talking about $360 billion dollars we’re sending overseas to cover our oil needs. If you switch the transprotation sector to nat gas you’d drop 1/3rd of your oil demand. 1/3rd of our total imports is the same amount we get from OPEC. So, you can keep $120 billion dollars a year in the US going to US companies instead of the OPEC princes if you did this. What is the cost of that plan? $5 billion dollars, total, spread out over 5 years of tax credits to TRUCKING companies. Not energy companies and not a subsudy and not recurring funding!
Guys, read the bill. If you don’t think letting a trucking company have lower taxes is a good idea, fine. If you like OPEC, fine. If you can’t see the logic of not taking $5 billion dollars of tax revenue in so as to keep $120 billion dollars a year in the US, fine. But at lest do yourselves the favor of reading it yourself. Make the Koch brothers lobbyist and spin masters earn thier keep because they’re counting on you not reading it.
I was in your corner until you brought the Koch brothers into it. I thought the main guy in this story was T. Boone Pickens? GeeWizz…..
That is one way to look at it, the Government subsidizes one area and nothing else is affected. In a nice Liberal Utopia this is true, but the real world works differently. We would A) Force new standards on truck manufactures which would cost them billions in infrastructure changes, B) There would be billions in new infrastructure for gas stations and repair stations. C) All this new usage of LNG would cause current demand to spike raising prices for home owners and power stations that use LNG.
If we allow the free market to work and this is a good idea, than the process would be gradual and the LNG suppliers could slowly raise there output, the infrastructure for transporting the fuel could be built slowly without Government support and nobody gets hurt and taxpayers pay nothing. I also agree with John.in Georgia, you had a cogent argument running until you brought up the Koch brothers… It’s like the liberal tarets syndrome, you just can’t get through an argument without an ad hominem attack.
I mentioned the Koch Brothers because they are paying lobbyist to go against the NAT Gas act because they’re protecting thier financial interest. A lot of the “it’s a subsidy” line is directly tied to thier lobby efforts. Google news search the Koch brothers and the nat gas act to verify, if you like.
In the case of the Nat Gas act, I’ve been frusterated with the mischaracterization of the bill, I know “it’s politics”, because it’s a step towards using an American resource that will actually provide “drill ready” jobs from companies, and not the government. Additionally, by offering a tax credit a shipping manufacturer isn’t forced to buy a CNG truck. All the credit does in mitigate the cost differential between a CNG truck and a diesel truck. As demand for the CNG trucks increase, the production of CNG trucks will increase and the price of production will drop, thereby expalining why only a 5 year tax credit is needed.
Additionally, if we get trucks on a cheaper fuel, a lower transporttaion cost decreases product cost. That alone will provide inertia and provide the consumer with lower pricing. So, kick starting the process and walking away should be all it needs.
However, I’ll honestly tell you. I don’t care about the cleaner burning fuel part. I’m a geologist. I don’t buy anthropogenic global warming. But, all the better if we can improve air quality. I care about the two things: It gets us out of OPEC and changes our Middle Eastern foreign policy while creating jobs and keeping our money here. It does all of that by selectively cutting taxes. To me, that’s a win.
Let Pickens buy his fleet of natural gas vehicles, and power them himself. With gas from the ground, of course.
Actually the way this works is that Boone&Co has pretty much locked up the water resources necessary to get the gas out of the ground.
http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?list=195065&id=633265
I don’t think he was planning to use that water for fracking but the ppoint is moot now.