Leave ExxonMobil ALOOOOOONE…..

The next time a conservative tells you that he believes in the free market and balanced budgets, just show him this:

Republicans senators who in the past have supported ending tax subsidies to big oil companies are prepared to vote Tuesday night with their party leadership to keep those subsidies in place.

“I’m going to vote with my party,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) during a Senate vote Tuesday afternoon. “I just think oil subsidies have to be part of a bigger package. If you had expanded drilling, I would consider reducing the subsidies or eliminating them if you got more drilling as part of the package.

“I’m leaning against it because it looks like it’s political,” said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

For a few months, our conservative friends have been complaining that environmentalists’ insistence on cap-and-trade has blocked “consensus climate change solutions.”  Please.  These guys can’t even get rid of oil company subsidies.  I particularly like Senator Kirk’s justification that it looks “political”: this seems to adopt the McConnell Doctrine that anything supported by Democrats will be opposed even if it is good for the United States.  Party over Country is now the official ideology of the Republican Party.

Alternatively, you could put it this way.  The GOP: Capitalism for the working class, and socialism for the rich.

UPDATE:  The Republicans successfully filibuster the bill to repeal oil company subsidies on a heavily partisan 52-48 vote.  Only 3 Dems vote to sustain the filibuster and only 2 Republicans vote against it.  The GOP: the Party of ExxonMobil.

Author: Jonathan Zasloff

Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic - Land Use, the Environment and Local Government. He grew up and still lives in the San Fernando Valley, about which he remains immensely proud (to the mystification of his friends and colleagues). After graduating from Yale Law School, and while clerking for a federal appeals court judge in Boston, he decided to return to Los Angeles shortly after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake, reasoning that he would gladly risk tremors in order to avoid the average New England wind chill temperature of negative 55 degrees. Professor Zasloff has a keen interest in world politics; he holds a PhD in the history of American foreign policy from Harvard and an M.Phil. in International Relations from Cambridge University. Much of his recent work concerns the influence of lawyers and legalism in US external relations, and has published articles on these subjects in the New York University Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. More generally, his recent interests focus on the response of public institutions to social problems, and the role of ideology in framing policy responses. Professor Zasloff has long been active in state and local politics and policy. He recently co-authored an article discussing the relationship of Proposition 13 (California's landmark tax limitation initiative) and school finance reform, and served for several years as a senior policy advisor to the Speaker of California Assembly. His practice background reflects these interests: for two years, he represented welfare recipients attempting to obtain child care benefits and microbusinesses in low income areas. He then practiced for two more years at one of Los Angeles' leading public interest environmental and land use firms, challenging poorly planned development and working to expand the network of the city's urban park system. He currently serves as a member of the boards of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (a state agency charged with purchasing and protecting open space), the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice (the leading legal service firm for low-income clients in east Los Angeles), and Friends of Israel's Environment. Professor Zasloff's other major activity consists in explaining the Triangle Offense to his very patient wife, Kathy.

10 thoughts on “Leave ExxonMobil ALOOOOOONE…..”

  1. Or you could make the logical choice and go Libertarian and remove all of the BS. Going main stream right or left at this point is an exercise in more destruction, corruption and plundering.

  2. So, G, when you recommend Libertarian as an alternative to destruction, corruption, and plundering, the question is: are you advocating Principled, irrelevant Libertarianism, or are you advocating actual existing libertarianism – i.e., hypocrisy and pious mouthings in the service of a Republican agenda?

  3. Professor Zasloff, I seem to have forgotten a fact. Could you remind me of Senator Harkin’s position on ethanol subsidies?

    Oh, I seem to be forgetful today. Professor Zasloff, please pardon the inconvenience, can I ask you for another fact? Would you happen to recall Sen. Manchin’s position on Cap-and-Trade?

    But Warren Terra is shrewd, perceptive, wise, and just in insisting that we must dismiss libertarian alternatives. The idea that we can ask the government to forbear from subsidizing, well, everything is just…just so naïve.

  4. Actually existing libertarianism is well represented by Senator Rand Paul. I understand he voted for the corporate socialism today. Only the Mainers broke ranks with the Republican caucus on this one.

  5. What I don’t get is why the Republican senators let themselves getting snookered into this vote rather than just quietly letting the House blue slip it?

  6. Charles, that Reason article is trying to deceive the reader. I trust you weren’t deceived by it and merely are passing it along for people to judge for themselves.

  7. I’m saying Charles isn’t endorsing the deception, he is merely passing along libertarian argumentation supporting several comments in this thread.

  8. There is a local version of this in California too – Republicans are protecting the CRAs.

Comments are closed.