Senate Dems Lose Vote on Repeal of Tax Breaks for Oil Companies Amid Pain at Pump

Why do democrats keep calling these tax breaks subsidies? Why do they keep neglecting to mention that many other industries in this Country get the same tax breaks? Why do they fail to inform us that they are picking on FIVE oil companies? They aren't demanding that these tax breaks be taken away from ALL oil companies, just the five that they don't like. Why don't they admit that if these tax breaks are taken away the price of gasoline will rise in accordance?

These big five oil companies pay about 40% in taxes, even with the tax breaks they get, billions of dollars. But all the democrats see is the dollar figures, never mind that there are lots of companies that make a bigger profit percentage, just not the dollar amount. The democrats also refuse to mention that out of those profits the oil companies pay for research and development and exploration. It's not like they drill a hole in the ground and oil pops out. They spend huge amounts of money figuring out exactly where the oil is.

And lets also keep in mind that the oil industry employs thousands and thousands of people. Every time obama and his gang of thugs make it harder for oil companies to drill, Americans lose their jobs. The oil industry sufffers every day along the Gulf Coast because obama refuses to allow them to drill.

obama recently said he is going to increase drilling in the Gulf, off of Alaska, and off of California. It's bullshit. It is an election stunt. He has no intention of EVER allowing our Country to become energy independent. Don't fall for it people...

From FoxNews

As expected, Senate Democrats lost a key test vote Tuesday on a bill that would have repealed $20 billion worth of tax subsidies for the nation's five largest oil companies, falling 8 votes short of a win.

The 52-48 vote came as a majority of Americans say in a new Gallup poll that high gas prices are hurting their finances.

Nearly seven in 10 Americans said high gas prices are causing financial hardship for their families. More than half said to compensate, they have made major changes, ranging from shorter trips to cutting back on vacation travel. More than a 1,000 people responded to the poll that has a 4 percent margin of error.

The national average price for a gallon of regular gas is $3.94, according to AAA, and Democrats were looking to exploit that high price with Tuesday's vote.

Last week, Democrats grilled oil executives on the tax breaks that they say are not needed and President Obama announced Saturday he was directing his administration to ramp up U.S. oil production by extending leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast.

Democrats have been touting a new report by the Joint Economic Committee found that eliminating the tax breaks would reduce the deficit by $21 billion over 10 years and encourage alternative energy and energy efficiency.

"This new JEC report makes clear that there are ways to bring down the deficit without harming our economic recovery," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., chairman of the committee. "By repealing unnecessary tax breaks to the major integrated oil companies, we can reduce the deficit by more than $20 billion and speed the move to a clean energy economy without impacting prices at the pump."

But Republicans opposed the bill, saying it won't relieve pain at the pump, a conclusion also reached by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said on the Senate floor Tuesday that "it won't affect gas prices at all."

Reid then went on to say the opposite.

"We have to do something about the exorbitant gas prices, and the best way to start with that is to do something about the five big oil companies getting subsidies they don't need," he said.

Read the rest at the link above...

EXCLUSIVE: Senator’s husband’s firm cashes in on crisis

I find it very difficult to believe that this was a mere coincidence. It's much more likely that feinstein is just another thug, criminal democrat.

She introduces legislation that is out of her area of involvment that just happens to benefit her and her husband to the tune of millions. Hmmm, I'm a bit skeptical about this deal. And these types of deals are against the rules, and probably illegal.

The list of crooked democrats gets longer by the day. dianne feinstein, maxine waters, charlie rangel, john kerry, obama, the list goes on and on. Sure, there are some crooked republicans too. But the funny thing is, there criminal activity lands them kicked out of polititcs or in jail. When democrats do it, it magically goes away, just like this will.

Thanks to Marc Cote for the link to this article, it pisses me off, but thanks none the less...

From Chuck Neubauer - The Washington Times

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum’s private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE’s stock closed Monday at $5.14.

Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum’s firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn’t even know about CBRE’s business with FDIC until after it was awarded.

Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as “even the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband’s firm.

“This clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest,” said Kent Cooper, a former federal regulator who specializes in government ethics and disclosures. “To maintain the people’s trust in government, it is incumbent on a legislator to take the extra steps necessary to ensure that when she introduces any legislation that it does not cause people to question her motives or the business activities of her spouse.”

Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum, a wealthy investment banker, are a power couple in both Washington and California who sat behind President Obama during his inauguration in January. Mrs. Feinstein also is mentioned as a candidate for California governor.

The FDIC contract “highlights the problem of a senator with a spouse who has extensive business interests that intersect frequently with the federal government,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “Even if there is no actual conflict of interest, it often has the appearance of a conflict.”

Read the rest at the links above...

Missouri Lawmakers - Part 2

SB 7 - Creates the "TANF Child Protection and Drug Free Home Act" regarding drug testing for work-eligible TANF applicants and recipients

Since I am still waiting on a response from my State senator, david pearce, on the first bill I was going to bring to your attention, here is another one you might be interested in.

This bill lets the department of social services drug test people receiving TANF benefits if a social worker feels there may be substance abuse.

That's great. I partially agree with this. Here is where my thoughts are a little different, when I got the job that I have now, the one that provides tax dollars for the government to give TANF benefits, I took a drug test. I wasn't drug tested because the HR lady thought there might be substance abuse, I was drug tested because it is a requirement for me to be hired.

People receiving any kind of welfare should be drug tested before they are able to pick up a check, period.

I realize there are people out there who truly need help, and I know that taxes are the way in which the government provides help to these people. But the very thought of those people using my tax dollars to purchase drugs burns my ass especially since this money is provided for support of children...

Here is the sumary of SB7

This bill is a combination of several other bills (SB7, SB5, SB74 & SB169), The current sponsor is Senator Jack Goodman

SB 7 - This act requires the Department of Social Services to develop a program to test applicants or recipients of temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) benefits who are eligible for employment when a case worker believes, based on reasonable suspicion, that such person engages in illegal use of controlled substances. Any applicant or recipient who is found to have tested positive for the use of a controlled substance after an administrative hearing shall be declared ineligible for temporary assistance for needy families benefits for a period of three years from the date of the administrative hearing decision. The department shall refer an applicant or recipient who tested positive for the use of a controlled substance under this act to an appropriate substance abuse treatment program approved by the division of alcohol and drug abuse within the Department of Mental Health. Also, if a parent is deemed ineligible for TANF benefits due to the provisions of this act, his or her dependent child's eligibility for such benefits shall not be affected and an appropriate protective payee may be established for the benefit of the child. The department shall promulgate rules to develop the screening and testing provisions of this section.