He doesn’t just want to earn it by providing goods and services, he wants tax-payer subsidies for what is described as his “earmark bill.” A bill that, to date, has 86 R’s and 100 D’s as its co-sponsor.
I first heard this bill, HR 1380, had been introduced late last month, but until the last few days nothing much has been reported on it. That is changing and bright lights are beginning to shine on this outrageous example of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.
T. Boone Pickesn has been promoting this agenda for several years, known as the “New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act” (NAT GAS Act), which has also been called the “Pickens Plan” Not only was he successful in currying favor with then Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, who is now trying to be our next Senator, where the Taxis in Dallas were being forced to convert to CNG vehicles or be pushed out, he was able to pressure D/FW airport to follow suit. Tom Leppert and TBP’s plans have been stalled at D/FW for now, as the cab drivers filed a Federal lawsuit to halt the unfair labor practices, but most observers believe the TBP plan will eventually win the lawsuit.
In Oct 2009, one month before the Dallas mayor started forcing cab companies to convert their vehicles to CNG, TBP attended a “National Clean Energy Summit 2.0″ and shared the stage with Sen. Harry Reid and former VP Algore.
Show Us Your Money
Here are some of the things that are finally being said about this unholy alliance of TBP and politicians eager for campaign contributions.
From GlobalWarming.org, The T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill:
H. R. 1380 would extend the tax credit of 50 cents per gallon of liquid natural gas (or its equivalent of compressed natural gas) when used for fueling vehicles and provide purchasers of natural gas vehicles with credits ranging from $7,500 to $64,000. The lower end is for passenger cars and the upper end for big trucks. There are also credits for natural gas vehicle manufacturers and for installing natural gas fueling stations.
Why are billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies needed? According to T. Boone Pickens’s web site, it’s because natural gas vehicles are cheaper to operate than gasoline or diesel vehicles: “Even with higher initial costs (which will disappear as manufacturing ramps up) the life-cycle costs of NGVs [natural gas vehicles] are significantly lower. Fuel costs are at least 15 percent less using natural gas rather than gasoline or diesel.”
So people need to be paid in order to make them want to buy vehicles that will save them money. Yes, that makes sense: I always prefer the more expensive product unless there is a government rebate for the cheaper one. Call it the Boonedoggle bill.
The sentence in bold is the crux of the issue and why TBP needs our money in the form of tax subsidies so he can profit in selling more natural gas, as a 15% fuel cost savings isn’t enough to justify the increased expense of buying a CNG vehicle or converting one, as the $7,500 conversion cost added to a $30,000 vehicle is a 25% increase in the purchase price, the fuel is a gas so it is less dense than a liquid and produces less horsepower and reduced range of the vehicle. While CNG might work great for fleet vehicles that run routes, such as a city bus, or even for vehicles for delivery services like UPS or FedEx, but for the average consumer the loss of cargo space for the bulky tanks, the reduced range requiring frequent fuel stops and the loss of power when trying to reach freeway speeds, are all serious impediments to this fuel source. Without a doubt, the single best use for this fuel source is for electrical generation plants, as they are stationary and the fuel can be pipelined in. I won’t even dignify TBP’s propaganda that greater use of NG will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and stop funding terrorists. We should be producing more of our own oil as it is and not be reliant on foreign sources.
Also in this article, the author states:
It’s sad to look at the list of conservatives who claim to be principled who have signed up to support the Boonedoggle.
The chief sponsor is Rep. John Sullivan of Oklahoma. Most surprising and perhaps most disappointing is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who claims that he votes against everything that isn’t in the Constitution. I seemed to have missed the section of the Constitution that allows taking billions of dollars from taxpayers to give to fatcat billionaires and corporate welfare queens. Call it the Pickens-Your-Pocket bill.This stampede by conservatives, including several freshmen who identify with the Tea Party, to support the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill makes a mockery of their claims to want to cut federal spending, eliminate subsidies to special interests, and get government out of people’s lives. We’re very close to returning to business as usual in Washington.
TBP has been spreading his wealth around, lobbying anyone in Congress, state and city government that can help him push his plan and create greater demand for his NG.
Personally, I don’t find it that surprising that Ron Paul is one of the sponsors of this bill, having signed on nine days after it was introduced. His check must have been in the mail. Paul’s dipping into the honey jar in Congress is nothing new, as he is legendary for huge earmarks and he plays a really cute game. He submits his earmarks, then, knowing the legislation will pass, votes against it so he can say he didn’t vote for the earmarks.
All is not lost, though. As more citizens find out about this boondoggle and begin spreading this information on talk radio, blogs and by contacting their representatives, this nonsense can be turned back.
In a post at the WaPo blog, 2Chambers, the author had this encouraging news about two freshmen GOP representatives that have introduced H. Res. 267.
“What I’ve seen already in four months and a couple of weeks in Congress, I’ve had 12 different energy industries come into my office, each of them saying, ‘If I can just get a little more federal money – if I get one more grant, one more credit, one more mandate – then I’ll make it,’ ” Pompeo said Friday afternoon at a news conference with Labrador and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, who has urged members of Congress to vote against the bill.
Noting that he sold equipment to the natural gas and oil industry for six years before running for Congress, Pompeo said that his opposition to the measure stems not from any ill will toward the industry but rather from his desire to see government stay out of the business of using the tax code to pick winners and losers.
I don’t blame TBP for pursuing his own interests, but I do resent him and his interests when they conflict with the vast majority of our citizens.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
I don’t blame TBP for pursuing his own interests, but I do resent him and his interests when they conflict with the vast majority of our citizens.
I have no problem with blaming a moral cretin for pursuing his own interests when he knows darn well that HIS interests will add to the impoverishment of his fellow citizens.
Crony capitalism has got to go before it chokes us all.
I couldn’t agree more.
If this man wants to invest his own money into gas exploration and sell it to the public, fine, but asking us to fund his venture is unacceptable.
I guess I dont know enough about this topic except i have heard TB say we have more natural gas than SA has oil. If that’s true, why not exploit it? As for subsidies, we’ve given to oil for years and now all the alternatives…why not natural gas?
But, what I know most of all is that this whole energy issue will not be settled in my lifetime because the powers that be and the richie riches don’t want it to be. They just want to get richer.
TBP says a lot of shit, mostly that which serves his personal interests.
Sure we have a lot of natural gas, we also have a lot of oil that we aren’t allowed to extract and when it comes to coal, the U.S. is the SA of the world with proven coal reserves. We should be using all of our resources. As for the subsidies TBP is seeking, he is trying to create an increased demand for NG which he is heavily invested in. In the form of compressed natural gas(CNG), it is a very poor substitute for most passenger vehicles, with less power and range, and even if NG is currently cheaper than gasoline the cost of converting a new car is close to $14,000. The $7,500 tax rebate is still inadequate to encourage the behavior he seeks. If it makes economic sense for businesses and individuals to convert to CNG, then they will.
The main point is, government should be ending subsidies, not increasing them. TBP has billions, he should take his own risks and not ask us to fund them.
Also, TBP has already bilked the taxpayers once before, by creating a huge windmill farm with huge subsidies for each and every windmill, then selling the whole thing off.
While I despise T. Boone Pickens (he makes Billy Sol Estes look like a Boy Scout) I don’t believe he ever finished his windmill farm. Now, I could be wrong, but I know a guy who was driving the flag car for the company that was taking the blades to the Pickens place from the Port of Galveston (of course, the blades are Chinese-made). He told me the windmill farm had been put on hold.
After a few inquiries, I was told that when Pickens couldn’t get the government to foot the bill for the farm, he absorbed what he claimed was money out of his own pocket and shut ‘er down. That was about a year ago.
I do know that Pickens had screwed more people than a Vegas hooker. He was selling water he didn’t even own on a scam that read like fiction. I’ll try to find the article so I can give you the link.
I knew he lost interest in the windmill farm when he couldn’t get several states to authorize/give/sell the transmission line right of ways, but I thought he had already collected large sums of windmill subsidies before he sold the farm at a loss.
Almost immediately after hearing he had sold the windmill farm, he really began his push for the Nat Gas Act and he will cozy up to any sleazy politician that is willing to help him push his plan. It was just pathetic watching Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert doing everything he could to push CNG on the public, by forcing public transportation to convert. I’m sure he thinks his being TBP’s lackey will help him in his run for the Senate.
All of these “alternative” fuel sources offer low bang for the buck, compared to petroleum products, but I’m all for them finding a place in our overall inventory of energy sources. I remain totally opposed to subsidies for any of these industries, least of all the scam “green” energy BS.
There is one energy source that the U.S. first developed in the 1940′s and then in the 60′s created the first reactor using Thorium molten salt water.
Thorium is abundant, cheap, non-nuclear and the ionic reaction taking place is so safe, some claim the reactor doesn’t even need a computer system. If the water overheats, the salt plug melts and the water drains out, stopping the ionic reaction. The Oak Ridge Thorium reactor was so safe, at 5p.m. on Fridays, the technicians all went home, leaving it running, then returned at 8a.m. on Mondays.
We need to use ALL of our resources, but government doesn’t need to be in the business of determining winners and losers based on how much cash some one contributes to politicians.
Here you go:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/20736
Bad link, retire05
Sorry, try this:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/207036
Let me know if it works.
Thanks!
Cui bono, indeed.
When I get time, I will try and follow where this pipeline/transmission line effort went.
Sooo, Pickens isn’t trying to buy people’s water rights out from under them anymore ?
FYI : To landowners:
Never, Ever sell your mineral OR water rights.
I still have mine, but I’ve heard plenty about this.
Also,
If you sell property, Keep the mineral and water rights.
So many people in the past have already sold the mineral rights, it is damned near impossible to find any property where ALL conveys.
This is not true about cng having less power, itis actually about the same at 120 octane, gas mileage sbout the same. But what does happen is pressuure goes down below 600psi in tank so that means less fuel delivered , no how much accelerator pedal pressed. Tanks are full at 3600psi but gas mileage stays the same no matter how low they go with comparable mileage to Fact, i will switch when fueling stations have arrived in my area.
You need to make a distinction between a dedicated CNG vehicle and a conversion that is bi-fuel.
Currently there is only one passenger car manufactured to run on CNG, the Honda Civic NG/GX. The engine is built for the fuel, which means higher compression ration, different injectors and timing. That is not the case with a conversion. I have been studying this issue for nearly ten years and I do have a vested interest in the natural gas industry.
One thing that really amazed me was how dramatically and quickly the department of energy data changed as soon as this current administration took over. I had a Mercury Marquis at that time, with the 4.6L V8, essentially the same vehicle as the Ford Crown Victoria. The DOE information in the mid 2000′s showed the CNG converted Crown Vic as getting 13 city/17highway, while the gasoline powered vehicle was 18 city/25highway.
While the CNG tanks may be rated at 3600psi, you will find that most filling stations only pump at 3000psi. If you go for a quick fill, you will not be able to fill the tank, thus reducing your range. With a time fill, it takes hours to fill the tanks.
And no, converted vehicles do not accelerate as well, the injectors and low compression ratio don’t let it happen.
Besides, the current known domestic supply of natural gas, if demand approaches that of gasoline, will only last about 43 years. Definitely not a fuel source that can replace gasoline, still the best bang for the buck. If the green meanies would get out of the way and allow us to drill and use all available fuel sources, we can be energy independent and extend those sources for much longer.
As a fleet vehicle or for permanent structures that only need a low pressure line, natural gas is an excellent fuel source. For the lack of range, time required to fill and loss of passenger/luggage space, the CNG vehicle is a very poor choice for families or individuals that need that space for say, golf clubs or luggage.
As to providing subsidies for Nat Gas, I don’t think it is worthy of consideration. If the market wants it, it will succeed on its own merit. Personally, I am not in favor of any government subsidies, not for this, not for Chinese wind mills, Brazilian oil fields or for our own domestic energy companies.
I THOUGHT THE LNG ENGINES IN EIGHTEEN WHEELERS GIVE IT THE RANGE THE TRUCKS NEED , BUILT BY PETERBUILT GIVES THEM THE RANGE THEY NEED AND ENDURANCE. BUT SUBSIDY FOR TRUCKS AND CARS NO BUT GRANTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE GOOD. ALSO, YES DIVERSIFICATION ON ALL FUELS WILL HELP. BUT ALL THE TAX SUBSIDY ON ETHANOL IS REALLY SILLY AND THEY WANT UNDO IT BECAUSE OF CONSERVATIVE TERRITORY.
Dude!
Unlock the cap key.
I was specifically talking about lng, but cng. Since you brought it up, look at who is buying these trucks and how they are being used. They are primarily route driven fleet trucks for companies like UPS. An excellent choice, but not for the typical consumer that drives a passenger vehicle.
Stop with the “conservative territory” crap, there are more democrats co-sponsoring Pickens Earmark bill than republicans. The ethanol subsidies are just as ridiculous as any.
You want one of these things, fine, but not me and not a whole bunch of other people for some very sound reasons.
The Washington Times