At Big Oil hearing, Democrats attack tax breaks

ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson laughs as he takes his seat on Capitol Hill May 12, 2011, prior to testifying before the Senate Finance Committee hearing with other top oil executives on high gasoline prices and high profits. (AP)

(CBS/AP)  

Updated: 3:03 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON - A U.S. Senate Democrat is using the words of former oil company chiefs in an attempt to invalidate arguments the current group of corporate leaders is using to keep generous tax breaks.

With the heads of the five largest private oil companies watching at a hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden played a video of a 2005 hearing in which oil company executives said they did not need generous tax breaks because oil was selling at $55 a barrel. It is now above $100 a barrel.

Wyden said he could not understand why oil companies need tax breaks now, when oil is selling for nearly twice as much.

Chevron Corp. chairman and chief executive John Watson said the companies do not want special tax benefits -- just the benefits that other industries get.

Schumer seeks to end US subsidies of oil companies

Democrats are challenging whether oil companies really deserve tax breaks that add billions of dollars to their profits each year. Senate democrats have unveiled a bill that would repeal about $2 billion a year in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies, CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes reports.

On Wednesday, five democratic senators released a letter to the executives, asking them to admit that they no longer need taxpayer subsidies. High oil and gas prices, they say, are enough incentive to explore for oil.

With the national average still close to $4 for a gallon, Americans continue to drive less. Demand for gasoline dropped 2.4 percent last week, the largest drop in seven consecutive weeks of declines. But pressure on lawmakers to show progress on gas prices remains high.

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus brought the CEOs before the Senate Finance Committee to say it's time to end special tax breaks for their companies, CBS Radio News' Bob Fuss reports.

"This is going to be incredibly difficult," Baucus said. "Everyone's going to have to give in a little bit."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) argued that oil executives were "deeply out of touch" with the American people - a claim Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson disputed.

"I want to assure you I'm not out of touch," he replied, arguing that tax hikes could cause the company to move investments out of the country.

Chevron CEO John Watson argued, additionally, that the targeted companies pay plenty of taxes - and that taking away these credits would result in less exploration and fewer jobs. The companies, he said, shouldn't be punished for making big profits.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) was not convinced.

"I find it hard to understand how you can come here before this committee and the American people and say, when you are projected to make $125 billion in profits this year," he said. "That somehow the loss of $2 billion a year, which means you only make $123 billion in profits, is somehow so punishing, somehow not part of shared sacrifice, somehow you need to go back at them at the pump to make up for it."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), however, was more sympathetic to the executives in question. Holding up a photo of a dog riding atop a pony, he slammed Democrats for taking cheap shots.

"This hearing should not be used to score cheap political points," he said, holding up the dog-and-pony image. "Let's send the pony back to the stable. ... Let's send the dog back to the kennel."

Senate Committee Finance

Oil and gas industry executives testified on ending tax breaks for the largest multinational oil and gas companies. Senate Democrats and the Obama administration had proposed ending $21 billion in subsidies for oil companies as .. Read More

Oil and gas industry executives testified on ending tax breaks for the largest multinational oil and gas companies. Senate Democrats and the Obama administration had proposed ending $21 billion in subsidies for oil companies as a budget deficit reduction measure. The executives said the plan would do little to reduce gas prices and hurt their exploration efforts.

 

Rehberg rhetoric, votes differ

By Ted Dick, Montana Democratic Party | Posted: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:07 pm 

Congressman Dennis Rehberg's Montana speeches don't match up to his Washington, D.C., record. He certainly tells Montanans what they want to hear about solutions to wolves, Pell Grants reform, ending oil subsidies, and saving Medicare.

The problem is Congressman Rehberg hasn't brought solutions to any of these issues. In fact, while in Washington, D.C., he's actually worked against solutions to each of these challenges.

For Congressman Rehberg, saying one thing in Montana and doing another in DC is an irresponsible habit. And it's taking a toll on our state.

Medicare

Take Medicare, for example. Congressman Rehberg is now spending your taxpayer money on glossy fliers to Montanans in an effort to tell them he supports Medicare. Why? Because he's in damage control. He hopes you will forget that his signature failed legislation - a bill to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - would end Medicare as we know it for thousands of Montanans, and millions of Americans.

Given his lack of leadership in trying to deny Medicare to millions of Americans, all Montanans should be concerned about Congress-man Rehberg's irresponsible plans for Medicare.

Wolves

Congressman Rehberg is also fond of telling Montanans that it's time to put wolves back under state management. That's what Montanans wanted to hear. But when it came time to put his money where his mouth is, Congressman Rehberg voted against a measure-sponsored by Max Baucus and Jon Tester-that returned control over wolves back to Montana.

Instead of voting for a responsible, bipartisan solution, Congressman Rehberg voted against Montana's best interest in order to help his own political career.

Oil Subsidies

In Columbus, Congressman Rehberg recently told Montanans that ending massive giveaways for big oil companies was "on the table." He didn't tell Montanans that a week before he held a fundraiser hosted by a British Petroleum executive with his old friends in the big oil industry. And Congressman Rehberg certainly didn't tell Montanans that a few days after his Columbus visit, he voted against ending subsides for big oil.

It makes sense that Congressman Rehberg would want to say holding big oil accountable is an option - after all, it's what Montanans expect. We are frustrated with the rising price of gas and we're tired of irresponsible big business running roughshod over our economy.

Let's be clear - Congressman Rehberg knew ending subsidies for big oil wasn't on the table, but he said so anyway. Montanans would be a lot better off if Congressman Rehberg gave us straight answers about what he really intends to do.

Pell Grants

A little while ago Congressman Rehberg, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, called Pell Grants "welfare." Pell Grants provide vital financial assistance for Montana families and kids who want to go to college.

Montana students were understandably upset, because Pell Grants create a bridge between students and good quality jobs. In response, Congressman said that he wanted to "reform" Pell Grants.

The problem is that he hasn't said how he wants to reform Pell Grants. He certainly hasn't presented a plan to strengthen Pell Grants. In fact, Congressman Rehberg has voted to severely gut Pell Grants. That's hardly reform, and hardly a responsible plan to help Montana students who need a good education to find good jobs.

It turns out that Congressman Rehberg's opinion of Pell Grants depends on who he's talking to. When he's playing to an extremist crowd on talk radio, he calls them "welfare." When he's talking to Montana students, he says Pell Grants need "reform." When he's voting in D.C. he guts the program.

Montanans expect their elected officials to mean what they say, and say what they mean. We also expect our Congressman to act the same way in Montana that he does in Washington DC. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case with Congressman Rehberg. To lead responsibly, Congressman Rehberg needs to start lining up his DC actions with his convenient Montana talking points.

- Ted Dick is the executive director of the Montana Democratic Party.

Regulatory Inadequacies Threatening Nuclear Reactor Safety Detailed in Markey Report

May 12, 2011:

“Fukushima Fallout” Reveals Breakdown in Emergency System Regulations Exposed Since Japanese Reactor Meltdown WASHINGTON, D.C. –Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, today released a report prepared by his staff at his direction entitled “Fukushima Fallout: Regulatory Loopholes at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants”, a summary of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory inadequacies, practices and decisions that impair effective nuclear safety oversight in the United States. The report, created in the wake of the Japanese catastrophe, highlights the following key findings: ·         Widespread malfunctions and inoperability of emergency diesel generators at nuclear power plants ·         The absence of emergency back-up power requirements at some spent fuel pools ·         The absence of requirements to prevent hydrogen explosions at reactors and spent fuel pools ·         Outdated seismic safety requirements, even as applications for new licenses and license extensions for many nuclear reactors continue to be processed by the NRC. “It is apparent that many of the failures of the reactor cooling systems and measures to prevent explosions that led to the meltdowns in Japan could also occur in the United States, and would not even be violations of current regulations,” said Rep. Markey. “This is unacceptable, and I believe that the NRC must halt its processing of all pending nuclear reactor licensing applications until these vulnerabilities are fully remedied.” The report concludes that “An examination of NRC regulations demonstrates that flawed assumptions and under-estimation of safety risks are currently an inherent part of the NRC regulatory program, due to a long history of decisions made by prior Commissions or by the NRC staff that have all too often acquiesced to industry requests for a weakening of safety standards. Coupled with reports that the near-term inspections being conducted at United States nuclear power plants may be limited in scope and subject to restrictions on public disclosure, it would be unwise to move forward with any pending licensing actions before the NRC fully completes its review and upgrades its safety requirements.” A copy of the full report can be found HERE. Rep. Markey recently introduced legislation to overhaul nuclear safety. The Nuclear Power Plant Safety Act of 2011 will impose a moratorium on all new nuclear reactor licenses or license extensions until new safety requirements are in place that reflect the lessons learned from the Fukushima reactor meltdown. Rep. Markey has served on the Committees that have oversight over the NRC and the nuclear utility industry since 1976.  For more than three decades, Rep. Markey has worked to secure nuclear power plants and ensure the public safety in the event of a nuclear disaster. In 1979, before the Three Mile Island accident occurred, Rep. Markey introduced legislation providing for a three year moratorium on licensing of new nuclear power plants until a top to bottom safety analysis on nuclear reactors could be performed. In 1982, he chaired a hearing on the distribution of potassium iodide.  In 1986, he chaired hearings on the causes and consequences of the disaster at Chernobyl. Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Rep. Markey passed a law to strengthen security for nuclear reactors and materials, and a law providing for distribution of potassium iodide to those living within 20 miles of a nuclear reactor. In 2010, he requested a Government Accountability Office investigation into the resiliency of nuclear power plants to earthquakes and other natural disasters.  And several days before the earthquake in Japan, Rep. Markey raised concerns regarding the seismic resiliency of the Westinghouse AP1000, a new nuclear reactor whose design is currently pending before the NRC.

The Christina-Taylor Green Memorial Scholarship

By educating young women and girls about the importance of politics, and imbuing them with the skills they need to be leaders, we give women the “running start” they need to achieve greater political power. With an earlier start in politics, women will climb higher on the leadership ladder, allowing more women to share in the decision making power of this country.

On January 8, 2011 nine-year-old Christina-Taylor Green went to a political event in Tucson, Arizona, to hear her Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords speak. Christina-Taylor was only nine, but she had already developed an interest in politics, and had just won a student government position at her school.

During the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Giffords, young Christina-Taylor was killed along with five other people.

To honor Christina-Taylor’s memory, Running Start has created a scholarship in her name for our flagship program, The Young Women Political Leadership Program. This program is held for a week every July in Washington, DC, and is a hands-on seminar educating our participants about politics, and teaching them what it takes to become a political leader.

This year, our program will be held July 18th – 23th at American University.

Although our program is geared for high school students, the Christina-Taylor Green Memorial Scholarship will be given to a mature young woman between 9 and 18 years old, from Southern Arizona who is already interested in politics and dreaming about running for office. The Christina-Taylor Green Memorial Scholarship will allow us to identify and mentor young girls like Christina-Taylor so that their spark of interest in politics and leadership increases as they move through high school, college and beyond.

Applications for The Christina-Taylor Green Memorial Scholarship are open from April 18 – June 1, 2011.  Girls age 9-18 from Southern Arizona are eligible to apply. Applications are available online at www.runningstartonline.org. Please note that girls under the age of 14 are required to bring a chaperone to the program.  The scholarship will include accommodations and airfare for the student and a parent or a guardian to attend the program with the scholarship winner.

Such a Bogus video

Let me know what ya think, people are actually posting this as the film of the death of bin laden

GOP Contenders Attack Obama's Foreign Policy Despite Bin Laden Killing

May 05, 2011

Republican presidential hopefuls came out swinging in their first debate Thursday night, attacking President Obama's foreign policy despite his leadership in ordering an operation that killed Usama bin Laden this week.

Republican presidential hopefuls came out swinging in their first debate Thursday night, attacking President Obama's foreign policy despite his leadership in ordering an operation that killed Usama bin Laden this week.
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty congratulated Obama for capturing the world's most wanted terrorist nearly 10 years after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"I tip my cap to him in that moment," he said. "But that moment is not the sum total of America's foreign policy. He's made a number of other decisions relating to our security here and around the world that I don't agree with." 
Pawlenty cited Libya as one example, saying he didn't agree with Obama's decision to defer to the United Nations on how to deal with Muammar Qaddafi's violent crackdown on rebels.
"If he says Qaddafi must go, he needs to maintain the option to make Qaddafi go and he didn't do that," he said.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said the only thing Obama has done right in his foreign policy is continue President George W. Bush's policies.
"The decision he made with Usama bin Laden was a tactical decision," he said. "It wasn't a strategic decision.The strategic decision was made by President Bush to go after him. What President Obama has done on his watch, the issues that have come up while he's been president, he's gotten it wrong strategically every single time."
Pawlenty and Santorum were among the five participants seeking to prove themselves to be more than the party's B-team as they try to catapult their White House bids into the national spotlight.
Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party  sponsored the debate that also featured Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former New Mexico Gov. Gary John and businessman Herman Cain.
They are the only candidates who met the sponsors' criteria to participate: forming a presidential exploratory committee, filing state GOP paperwork and paying $25,000 to get on the state primary ballot.
The GOP field is still taking shape, with about a dozen Republicans considering a White House bid or taking initial steps toward full-fledged campaigns. Among the notable absences were Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich.
They missed out on a chance to weigh in on the biggest issues of the day, including whether to release a photo of bin Laden's corpse, something that Obama has said he won't do. But four of the five participants said they would release the photo. Cain was the only one who opposed it.
At one point, Johnson, a libertarian-leaning Republican who backs gay rights and legalizing some drugs, cried foul over not getting as many questions as his fellow debaters. Fox News' anchor Bret Baier said the moderators would be "fair and balanced" with the questions.
Earlier Thursday, each participant toured the debate site.
Cain, a former Federal Reserve banker and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, was the first to set foot on stage. Later came Pawlenty, who zinged those rivals who chose to skip the debate.
"One of the things about leadership is that you've got to show up," he said. "And if you want to be president of the United States you've got to make a case to the American people that Barack Obama needs to be dismissed from his position."
Santorum, who's spent more time in the early voting states than any other candidate this year, cast himself as the most ardent conservative in the White House race.
"People that said, you know, put the moral issues aside, or, you know, don't talk about the families, they don't understand what makes America works, they don't understand the dynamic that is at play when that has made America the greatest country in the history of the world," Santorum said.
Paul, who renewed his demand for U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan and Iraq Wednesday was the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 1988. His 2008 GOP-run inspired the modern Tea Party movement and he planned to address the marathon South Carolina Tea Party rally after Thursday's debate.
Fox News' Carl Cameron contributed to this report.