The Gulf oil spill has provided a crisis for Democrats to seize upon. There are different ways in which they tale advantage of it. Obama’s response to the crisis is to play golf. The Democrat Congress responds as it usually does- increase taxes.
WASHINGTON (AP) – Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple—to 32 cents a barrel—a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade.
The tax is levied on oil produced in the U.S. or imported from foreign countries. The revenue goes to a fund managed by the Coast Guard to help pay to clean up spills in waterways, such as the Gulf of Mexico.
The tax would quadruple existing oil tax to 32 cents per gallon. Ostensibly, the money would be used for the clean-up of the Gulf oil spill. But it gets confusing. On one hand the article says
Lawmakers want to increase the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to make sure there is enough money available to respond to oil spills.
But in the next moment it says
President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have said they expect BP to foot the bill for the cleanup.
But the most amusing sentence came from Harry Reid.
“Taxpayers will not pick up the tab,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
We will pay – one way or the other –
Isn’t there enough stuff yet to impeach this POS????? Plz……………………………
Where has all the money gone that has been being paid for the last 24 years?
The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) was originally established under Section 9509 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It was one of several similar Federal trust funds funded by various levies set up to provide for the costs of water pollution. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) generally consolidated the liability and compensation schemes of these prior Federal oil pollution laws and authorized the use of the OSLTF, which consolidated the funds supporting those regimes. Those prior laws included the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act; Deepwater Port Act; and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The OSLTF can provide up to $1 billion per incident for uncompensated cleanup costs and can compensate oil-spill victims when liability limits have been reached or if the spiller and an injured party cannot reach an agreement on a settlement. The OSLTF receives funds from four primary sources: (1) an oil tax (five cents a barrel on domestically produced or imported oil collected from the oil industry; this is suspended when the fund reaches $1 billion but may be reinstated if the fund falls below this amount); (2) interest on fund principal; (3) cost recovery from responsible parties (The parties responsible for oil spills are liable for costs and damages. All monies recovered go either back to replenish the Fund or to the U.S. Treasury); and (4) penalties (to include civil penalties assessed to the responsible parties).
The OPA allows for claims for uncompensated removal costs consistent with the NCP and damages resulting from an oil pollution incident to include the following: uncompensated removal costs; natural resource damages; real or personal property damages; loss of subsistence use of natural resources; net loss of government revenues; loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity; and net costs of providing increased or additional public services.
To better address funding needs, the OSLTF has been subdivided into an Emergency Fund and a Main Fund. The Emergency Fund ensures rapid and effective response to oil spills without requiring further Congressional appropriations. Through this portion of the OSLTF, up to $50,000,000 is provided each year to fund removal activities and to initiate natural resource damage assessments. Money available in the Emergency Fund also includes a carryover from prior years. This portion of the OSLTF (the Emergency Fund) may be used for the following removal actions and costs/services:
Removal Actions
– containing and removing oil from water and shorelines;
– preventing or minimizing oil pollution where there is a substantial threat of discharge; and
– taking other actions related to minimizing the damage to public health and welfare.
Removal Costs/Services
– contract services (e.g., cleanup contractors and administrative support to document removal actions);
– salaries for government personnel not normally available for oil-spill responses and for temporary government employees hired for the duration of the spill response;
– equipment used in removals;
– chemical testing required to identify the type and source of oil; and
– proper disposal of recovered oil and oily debris.
The Main Fund (exclusive of the Emergency Fund) can be used to pay claims without further appropriation and may be used for other actions when Congress appropriates the funds. Such additional actions may include Federal administrative, operational, and personnel costs; natural resource damage assessments and restoration; and research and development.
On February 20, 1991, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) was commissioned to serve as fiduciary agent for the OSLTF. Since the Federal On-Scene Coordinators need funds immediately to respond directly to a spill or to monitor responsible parties’ actions, the NPFC established a system to provide funds 24-hours a day. In addition to dispersing funds for removal actions, the NPFC also administers the OSLTF by monitoring the use of funds, by processing third-party claims submitted to the OSLTF, and by pursuing cost recovery from responsible parties for removal costs and damages paid by the OSLTF. Generally the owner or operator of the vessel or facility that is the source of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge will be liable for removal costs and damages resulting from an oil-spill incident. Therefore, claimants must first seek reimbursement from the responsible party or guarantor. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the actions of the responsible party/guarantor with respect to the claim, the claimant may elect to litigate against the responsible party or submit the claim to the OSLTF. Claims against the OSLTF for removal costs must be submitted within 6 years after the date of completion of all removal actions for the incident. Claims for damages must be made within 3 years after the date on which the injury and its connection with the incident were reasonably discoverable; or in the case of natural resource damages under Section 1002(b)(2)(A) of OPA (33 U.S.C. 2702(b)(2)(A)), the same timeframe as above or within 3 years from the date of completion of the natural resource damage assessment, whichever is later. The controlling legal authority for OSLTF claims can be found in OPA (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and that statute’s implementing regulations at 33 CFR 136.
Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple—to 32 cents a barrel
OR
The tax would quadruple existing oil tax to 32 cents per gallon?
Very significant difference in these numbers . . . opps?
Other Peoples Money . . . just some more fun to be had. Legalized theft is what it is!!
It got to stop! 2012 is coming!!!
TALLGRASS:hi, nice to have you visit: IT will be a luxary to drive a car if it goes on. bye 🙄
@Rob in Katy, here’s the OSLTF annual report for fiscal years 2004-2008, with details and clean ups that were more that $350,000. On pg 14 you’ll find the revenue vs expenses, as reflected to the positive by the 5 cents per barrel tax implemented by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
On pg 15, they have the states that were reimbursed for spill response for those same fiscal years. The two highest were NJ ($145,570,078), and a far behind second of LA ($ 36,409,818). Third on the list was California ($ 12,166,544).
It’s also notable that most were from vessel or storage spills because, as I’ve pointed out in my posts on the Deepwater Horizon, most spills come from ships first, and land facilities second. It’s just not all that common to have offshore rigs have this event.
The POTUS has the statutory responsibility to respond to spills. As the annual report states:l
The funds are appropriated both thru the USCG and the EPA. As a matter of fact, some of the appropriations to these agencies are drawing on this fund.
As to the exorbitant raise in suggested taxes per bbl, it’s hard to comment. Rather depends on what the bottom line for this spill will be, what BP/Transocean and/or Halliburton and their insurance covers, etc. Then there is the funding for USCG and EPA that we are not necessarily privvy to. For all intents and purposes, the fund cannot be depleted because, as you can see, it gets used… tho not burdened as heavily as it may be with the Horizon spill… annually. 2006 seems to be an expensive year in particular, altho the public was not necessarily aware of these events and the funds expenditures.
So whether 32 cents per barrel is justifiable or not, I can’t comment. My gut says it’s a cost that will be passed on to the consumer that will be hard to bear in our future of reduced individual income revenues. But haven’t done the math since we’re not to the end of the BP/Horizon saga yet.
But count me surprised that Congress hasn’t figured out a way to get it’s mitts’ on this fund yet…. No other trust fund seems to be held sacred.
The Gulf spill may prove to be an economic and environmental catastrophe of the first order. Thusfar we’ve only seen the earliest stages. No one has a clue yet concerning the full extent of the disaster.
BP says they’ll pay. BP will tie things up in the legal system for years. Meanwhile taxpayers will foot the bill–not only for consequences that are obviously directly related, but for less obvious consequences that will ripple through the entire Gulf states economy.
I’ve got no problem with oil taxes rising to $0.32 per barrel. The increased rate would relate directly to the increasing public risk level that’s inherent in the product being taxed. Why conceal that? It’s a reality that needs to be brought into sharper focus.
What “increasing public risk level” would that be, Greg? Just how many oil rig spills of this magnitude over the past 4-5 decades do you think there has been?
I’d say that it’s obvious you, also, have not done “the math” on just what quadrupling the tax per barrel does to the individual’s living expenses. Should that OSLTF fund be a cash cow that Congress may dabble with in the future, just as they did with SS?
Until you run the math and find out if such a fiscal kneejerk reaction isn’t overkill, I suggest you’re all emotions, easily herded to panic/fear mentality, quick to demand the government “do something”… all based on little bolstered by specific facts. That’s why the Big Zero loves ya….
“What “increasing public risk level” would that be, Greg?”
We’ve obviously got the technology to drill offshore at depths where the technology is presently lacking to deal quickly and effectively with a serious accident. I don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise. The more we do that, the greater the overall risk. We’re probably going to be doing so for a while yet, even as we pursue better long-term national energy solutions.
We wouldn’t be having to do that if they allowed us to explore and produce in the gas and shale fields, Greg. They’re pushed offshore to deep water because the nanny Dems keep locking up every other resource we could use.
I don’t think there will be any deep water drilling for quite a while. It’s extremely counterproductive for any oil company to do so when any accident results in the extreme costs manifested by this. BP and Transocean for sure will be losing their shirts, and then some. If this had happened in the shallower waters, or on land, piece of cake.
There will be no nuke either…. despite that fact that Obama still speaks with his forked tongue. With no waste sites agreed upon, it’s not going to fly. Obama’s opposed to Yucca Mtn. He’ll find an excuse for everything because he, Goldman Sachs, and a ton of his int’l cronies, stand to gain mightily by quashing every affordable energy, and forcing the nation onto his “green” agenda. Now why do you think he’s pushing for increased CAFE standards for light trucks and SUVs… an additional 10mpg within 10 years? Think it’s got anything to do with eliminating competition for Govt Motors and forcing his “change” onto the American consumer for what we drive? naw…. couldn’t be. Not one as pure of heart as the Chicago thug in our Oval Office.
…. Like NUCLEAR.
Yep. Nuclear is good, with thorium reactors eventually replacing uranium. Wind is reasonable in some areas. Solar will come along. They could all feed the same modernized power grid. For transport fuel, bio-diesel looks promising, but natural gas could make a bigger dent in petroleum demand a lot sooner.
Oil dependency is a dead end street. We’re hemorrhaging money out of our economy to buy it and more money still to defend it, with a lot of that money enriching hostile foreign states. World demand is increasing, so it will become increasingly expensive and the attendent geopolitical problems worse until it runs out. If we could meet our demand with domestic sources, we’d be out it a decade or so tops anyway.
The facts aren’t altered by politics.
I am waiting for all of the liberal retards, who are making the most of this oil spill to get their face in the news, to step forward and publically forsake using any mode of transportation that uses an oil based fuel to power said vehicle….ie cars, limousines, airplanes etc etc…
So far I haven’t seen any step forward but hypocrisy is one of the many tools in the leftist toolbox….
At a time when gasoline prices are going up again, this idea of raising oil (or any kind of taxes) will cause the Democrat house-of-cards to implode right away.
Let them try. Even the suggestion of it sounds vulgar.
Best practice for conservatives is to let the liberal-socialists talk the kind talk that will end their reign quickly … higher taxes and more government. Just say and vote no.
Liberal hipocrisy?
There’s no small irony in conservatives hammering the Obama administration over inadequate oversight of an industry they previously asserted was hampered by too damn much meddlesome regulation.
Or in the fact that a few short weeks ago the “Drill baby drill!” crowd was going after him because the policy shift on offshore drilling didn’t go far enough.
A bit more recently, they were going after him for being too critical of BP. The government, they argued, should back off and let the industry handle it.
Limbaugh treated concern about the environmental consequences as a running joke. Environmentalists and conservationists have always been leftist idiots, of course. Tell that to Bobby Jindal, Rush.
I’m not sure the public’s short term memory is all that short.
Hey Greg, care to guess who we get most of our oil from?
BTW, where’d you get all that straw from?
There is no large irony either.
Sorry Greg, they are going after Mr. Obama because they can and will continue. We remember the constant harping on Mr. Bush. Paybacks are a bitch.
I think we’ve got to accept a new generation of nuclear power technology if we want to dodge a very dismal future. The way I see it, it’s part of the “green” agenda.
Integral Fast Reactors can be fueled using nuclear waste stockpiles and thorium, which we already have in abundance from rare earth mining. There’s enough on hand to meet our electrical demands for a decade before we’d need to mine more, and there’s an almost inexhaustable supply in the U.S. to mine. It’s estimated that they could generate electricity at a cost as low as 2 cents per kilowatt hour, with no CO2 emissions. That’s less than half the cost of coal generation. It’s smarter even if you don’t buy into the greenhouse gas/global warming argument.
Why bury our fuel in Yucca mountain? Once run high-level radioactive waste through an IFR, you’ve got much lower-level waste with a tremendously reduced half-life to deal with.
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm
Of course you also know, greg, that obummer and cronies will do everything they can to PREVENT nuclear energy from coming in.
@Greg
All that is/was needed is for the current existing regulations to be properly enforced. So often this is the case.