Roskam Again Supports Big Oil Interests Over Those of Constituents
(Aside to Peter: I apologize, Peter, if I haven’t been paying as much attention to you lately as I should. Hanging on to my own job has been keeping me busy day and night and I just haven’t had much time for politics. But rest assured I’m going to keep doing my part to help send you back to your cushy personal injury attorney gig and leave this governing business to the ungrateful hoi polloi. BTW, thanks for the robo calls. Nice to know you care enough to have your machine call me.)
This past week, Democrats in the House passed a measure designed to give a boost to efforts to develop new sources of clean, renewable energy and promote increased energy independence while protecting the environment.
Peter Roskam, our Representative in the 6th Congressional district, was not on board.
The bill, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, H.R. 5351, would, if enacted, extend a number of tax credits, now set to expire, to support alternative technologies such as solar energy, fuel cells, and alternative-fueled vehicles, and to support making commercial and residential properties more energy-efficient. New tax credits would also be created for investment in clean renewable energy and energy conservation bonds.
The bill would fund these tax credits by fiscally sound means - repealing certain tax breaks given to Big Oil companies by the Bush Adminisistration, the same companies now making record profits selling us high-priced gasoline, natural gas, and heating-oil. Gasoline prices at the pump have more than doubled since George W. Bush took office. (The G.O.P. really isthe “Gas and Oil Party”). Looking out my window as I write I see the lowest price at the BP near me to be $3.23. That was probably a buck-fifty at the end of the Clinon administration.
When he voted on this bill, Peter Roskam had the opportunity to do take a bite out of the high costs of energy for his constituents while promoting new jobs for them in them green technologies industries, helping them upgrade to energy-conserving technologies, and enhancing their security by reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. At the same time, Roskam, who occasionally like to portray himself as an environmentalist, could have taken a small step toward promoting a cleaner environment and reducing the impact of global climate change.
Roskam chose not to do so.
Instead, he chose to protect the huge profits being earned by Big Oil and lend yet another “rubber stamp” of approval to the Bush administration’s project of promoting rule by corporations over rule by the people.
Roskam doesn’t explain his vote on his web site. (He doesn’t even list energy in the “Issues” section). But, like Bush, I don’t think he believes he has to be accountable to the voters. He believes he is in a safe Republican district. But I think we’ll show him this fall just how unsafe his district can be for a Representative who ignores the interests of the voters.
1 comment
o H.R. 5351: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 (Act)
o 2/27/2008: Passed the House.
o 2/28/2008: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
o The Act would impose a conservation fee on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico; scrap nearly $6 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks enacted by Congress in recent years; and seek to recoup royalties lost to the government because of an Interior Department error in leases issued in the late 1990s. The Act passed the House with the partisan vote of 99% of Democrats supporting and 100% of Republicans opposing.
o The Republican leader, John Boehner states the Republican opposition like this: “Unfortunately, the Majority’s ‘no energy’ bill will only make matters worse by raising taxes and setting the table for even higher prices at the pump. Worse yet, it actually carves out tax breaks for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez – courtesy of American taxpayers.”
o This partisan remark is about Citgo, the U.S.-based company owned by the government of Venezuela. Only the biggest oil companies would have their subsidy reduced by the Act. Citgo is not big enough.
o Democrats said the Act could produce as much as $15 billion in revenue. Most of that money would pay to promote renewable fuels such as solar and wind power, alternative fuels including ethanol and biodiesel and incentives for conservation. The Heritage Foundation says these alternative energy methods have failed before. They say Congress should go back to the drawing board and craft a policy that places greater emphasis on the market.
o Republicans do not offer an alternative bill.
Calvin Leman
http://fp1.centurytel.net/democracy/
Leave a Comment