PDA

View Full Version : Article: Is Congressman Ron Paul Supporting Select Energy Subsidies?




sonofshamwow
01-30-2012, 10:14 AM
Interesting article from the conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Some excerpts below:


Is Congressman Ron Paul Supporting Select Energy Subsidies? [Michigan Capitol Confidential]

Presidential candidate splits with Club For Growth, Tea Party supporters

It’s the bill that has Tea Party favorites Ron Paul and Michigan Congressman Justin Amash pitted against each other.

House Resolution 1380 has been called everything from the “T. Boone Pickens” bill to "the next Solyndra.” Its official name is the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011.

Billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which runs natural gas fueling stations in the United States and Canada, has been lobbying in favor of the bill.


...

Congressman Amash does not support the bill. Will Adams, spokesman for Rep. Amash, said his boss does not support the bill because it is an example of government favoring one industry over another.

“Republicans seem to have a blind spot,” Adams said. “They think renewable energy is bad (to subsidize), but natural gas isn’t. It is part and parcel of the same issue.”
...


Randal O’Toole (http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/bio.aspx?ID=585), who is also an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center and senior fellow with the Cato Institute, said in an email that people have different takes on the bill.

If you believe in energy independence, then H.R. 1380, which gives tax breaks to people and companies who convert their motor vehicles to operate on natural gas, might seem like a good idea. The United States has plenty of natural gas but must import liquid oil that is refined into gasoline.

If you believe in cutting taxes anywhere and everywhere you can, as Ron Paul does, then H.R. 1380 might seem like a good idea. Paul says he supports the bill because it reduces taxes even though it only reduces taxes on some people in support of a particular social agenda.

If you believe in free markets, then H.R. 1380 is not a good idea. No central planner can really know whether the best way to fuel future motor vehicles will be by solar power, natural gas, electricity, gasified coal, tar-sand oil, oil-shales, or some unknown energy source. Government favor for one of these fuels may inadvertently shut out another which actually would be more efficient.

Even if you favor energy independence, the United States has abundant supplies of both coal and oil shale, so it would be inappropriate to favor natural gas over these other power sources. If natural gas is a sensible way to fuel motor vehicles, then let the market choose it over the alternatives.


...

Rep. Paul didn’t respond to an email seeking comment, but did comment on his website.

He stated (http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-06-26/energy-independence-government-should-neither-inhibit-nor-subsidize-any-type-of-energy/), “… while I do not support providing federal grants to any industry, I do support the tax credits contained in the NAT Gas Act, HR 1380. These credits reduce taxes for the production or purchase of vehicles that run on American-made natural gas. These credits are not subsidies.”
But the Club For Growth disagrees.

“If there is a market for natural gas vehicles, then the free market will generate one,” said Barney Keller, spokesman for Club For Growth.

FrankRep
01-30-2012, 12:27 PM
I don't support this bill.

I understand Ron Paul's viewpoint, but this selective taxation on certain things and not on others interferes with the market.

Icymudpuppy
01-30-2012, 12:33 PM
I would support an end to oil subsidies. As long as oil gets subsidies, they have an advantage in the marketplace.

Acala
01-30-2012, 01:43 PM
Ron Paul's position is that it is ALWAYS better to leave money in the private sector rather than government, even if it is uneven and unfair. And that is the choice here - more money in the hands of politicians who will dole it out to their special interests thereby increasing government power, or leaving it in the private sector in the hands of people who, although they may be political cronies, will spend the money in the real market and not increase government power.