• 77
If you think ending the ethanol subsidy puts all fuel sources on an equal footing, think again. While there has been a great deal of vitriol directed toward subsidies for alternative energy and plug-in vehicles, very little has been heard about the ways in which fossil fuels are given a huge advantage – and there are many. In fact, compared to the help fossil fuels are given, tax breaks for alternative energy are decidedly modest.

A new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that fossil fuels are awarded at least 250 different subsidies. From tax breaks on exploration to development credits to tax abatements on infrastructure, the ticket for fossil fuel subsidies runs much, much higher than the oft-scrutinized funds directed at alternatives. The oil industry alone receives tens of billions each year in tax subsidies, and that's only a fraction of the total break they are given. The subsidies for fossil fuels stretch back more than a century, and are pervasive in programs at federal, state, and local levels.

More than just ethanol subsidies expired with the beginning of 2012. The whole program of grants to clean energy programs was allowed to end. Meanwhile, subsidies that help fossil fuels are increasing annually, with almost no comment.

The many different kinds of subsidies provided to fossil fuels, the different ways they are inserted into various federal and state codes, and the vast amount of lobbying carried out by these industries makes it very difficult for alternatives to get a fair shake. By ending funds for clean energy, fossil fuel supporters have kept the field as uneven as possible, protecting their own interests at a cost to both government and consumers.
The oilTeThe oil


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 77 Comments
      electronx16
      • 3 Years Ago
      The biggest subsidy of all isn't even mentioned here. Not internalizing the negative external effects of our oil addiction (health, economy, security, diplomacy and so on ) into the price for the consumer means that every gallon of gasoline sold to the consumer is subsidized to the tune of many dollars (studies vary on the exact number) in not internalized negative external effects alone. So those pleading for the end of all subsidies: that might imply $10+/gallon gasoline as well which would make the need for subsidies on alternatives rather superfluous anyway.
        Marco Polo
        • 2 Months Ago
        @electronx16
        @Electronix 16 Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are suggesting that every aspect of the entire economy be calculated to be included for the cost of every commodity? Or just oil? The logistical complexity of such a calculation is impractical. Not only that, each aspect would be a matter of debate as to the percentage. Obviously, such calculations would be very subjective, depending on different political philosophies. (just sorting out which commodities have harmful aspect and balancing them against the valuable, would be a gigantic task). But, even if it could be done, to what point.? Oil, like most commodities, is an international product. Micro- economic arguments are useless without factoring Macro-economic effects. Electronix16, I agree with your argument that within an economy most elements are interconnected. Where we disagree, is the value and ability of measuring the proportions. Alternate fuel vehicles, will become a necessity! Oil depletion and economic investment will ensure that reality. The major Oil companies have already published articles about Oil depletion for the last 25 years. They may disagree on timing, but all the majors have diversified heavily into renewable energy, evolving from simply Oil companies to 'Energy Corporations'. (Interestingly, very little into coal) However, the disengagement from the world economy of the commodity that made the achievement of the 20 th century possible, is extraordinarily complex and very difficult. Each step but be very carefully considered, or an economic catastrophe is easily triggered. Simple solutions seldom resolve complex problems. In the meantime, I applaud your concern as to the negative effects of some Oil products on the planets, environment and human health. (and the posting of a thoughtful comment.) IMHO, the most useful environmental activist activity that can be pursued is the most overlooked. Oil's most harmful product by far, is the sale of 'No. 6 Marine grade fuel' or 'Bunker Oil'. The effects of this outdated and toxic substance can be directly linked to the deaths of more than 150,000 people a tear in the northern hemisphere alone! Another 3-4 million will contract terminal illnesses from the carcinogenic effects of this substance. Each large container vessel contributes the equivalent of 50 million motor vehicles p.a. in air pollution! Most of his toxicity falls into the ocean, where it's 'out of sight ,out of mind'. In truth it's even more dangerous in the ocean as it enters the food chain and destroys plankton. My 2012, resolve is to become more active in the abolition of this appalling substance. So once again I issue you the challenge, join me in the crusade to rid the planet of it's most toxic product?
        EZEE
        • 2 Months Ago
        @electronx16
        I wonder if anyone has done the math on what the price would be? Other nations would most likely not throw out the various incentives, so most likely it would serve to depress our exploration only, while ramping up others (like everyone's favorite, Canadian tar sands). Loosing American production would have a world wide affect on the price, seeing as it is a commodity (as PR has pointed out). So would it be $10 a gallon? No idea. Mobviously it Britain, with high gas taxes it probably would (but that would be okay because when the government forces higher prices through taxation, that's fine and we all happily pay that because it will go to great government projects, like shrimp on treadmills). Since much more of our oil and gas would be coming in from foreign nations, the tax receipts would fall, so there would be less money for shrimp n treadmills, or studies of the penis sizes of gay men, or studies of the sex habits of prostitutes on ho chi mi. City. Also, if we eliminated the 'subsidies' across the board, other American manufacturers would suffer, as the equipment depreciation rules which are part of the subsidies we hate would also not apply. So let's see...high inflation, union people out of jobs, collapse of manufacturing, importation of more oil and gas.... And....and.......and....no shrimp on treadmills....
          Chris M
          • 2 Months Ago
          @EZEE
          The real complication is: What should be considered a legitimate business expense that is allowed to be deducted from income for tax purposes, and what should be considered "subsidies". Expenses are not the same as subsidies. It does look suspiciously like a subsidy when the supposed "expense" greatly exceeds the profits and results in "tax refunds" much larger than "tax owed". Oil companies are notorious for getting huge "tax refunds" on taxes they never paid.
        EZEE
        • 2 Months Ago
        @electronx16
        Sorry elec, ADHD moment. I really was simply curious about what the price of gas would be, but got going.... My bad.
          EZEE
          • 2 Months Ago
          @EZEE
          I sourced my posts, others said, 'nuh-uh.'. Some beat down I took! Did anyone answer to what would happen to prices? If you took the subsidies off All manufacturing what would happen to jobs? Where the oil jobs would go, since it is a commodity? Did anyone take I to account the inflation that would occur since all shipping is done through vehicles that run on gas or diesel? How this would destroy the poor, which your side pretends to support and want to help? Did your side have anything to say about massive political contributions beyond, 'nuh-uh' by lawyers, teachers unions, and the like? Did anyone have anything to say of the lost tax revenues that would occur if the oil industry packed up and moved? Does anyone care that the Cubans are allowing oil wells to be drilled closer to Florida than the USA allows? All of you are posting on your emotion based rants, with a totally closed minded intolerant hateful approach, but since your minds operate purely on emotion, which is what they want so you are only capable of seeing those who disagree as evil dumb or insane, you don't even realize that it is I who am wiping the floor of you, and your alter ego, PR. I realize this now seeing as he is also ncapable of reading a post and seeing that it does have to do with the prior post, as I see you just did. My post ties into yours because I thought you made interesting point - what would the price of gas be without these so called subsidies? You mentioned $10 a gallon, which was obviously a WAG, but raised a valid point.
          electronx16
          • 2 Months Ago
          @EZEE
          Must be ADHD alright since your post doesn't seem to have any bearing on the point I was making...Maybe the fact that other posters like PR have been sweeping the floor with you throughout this thread has got gotten you a little confused.
      Nick
      • 3 Years Ago
      Money holds power, and the oil industry has made good use of its wealth to influence politicians at every level to their own advantage.
        Marco Polo
        • 2 Months Ago
        @Nick
        @Nick, Nick, you are correct, but that true of every organisation including Unions and large Consumer advocacy groups. In the US the religious right wields disproportionate power. What is to 'Oil Lobby's' advantage? In recent years this has become far more complex question. As oil companies diversify, divergent interests appear.( Chevron's huge investment in Geo-thermal energy welcomes the development of EV's.) The role of national governments, even powerful governments like the US, is diminishing in a more multi-national world dominated by multi-national corporations.
      • 3 Years Ago
      This article is excellent. There are so many more cost externalizations that never make it into planning decisions including: Illness cost of heart disease, stroke and asthma and associated lost productivity associated with smog emissions. We have environmental damages, acid rain, spills and liability risks and contaminated and depleting aquifers, We have increased costs for municipalities and industries needing base materials including steel, cement, tires etc. The resources are being snapped up to support Tar Sands expansions. Tar Sands contains quarts: It ruins metal so a constant need is there to replace materials inflating prices globally. Than we have energy security issues, energy supply issues and wars! We're loosing money hand over fist per barrel but nobody's centralizing the data to show taxpayers the truth! The prices will only go up folks. Time to back out of dependency ASAP to secure fiscal resilience and clean energy security for the long term.
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Louisette Lanteigne Louisette, thank you for being so passionate about the environment. I'm sure every rational person would agree with your sentiments. It a noble ambition. The problem is, a bit more complex. Coal provided the energy for all the benefits of the industrial revolution, Oil/Nat gas provided the energy to develop the incredible advances in technology of the 20th century. The commodity can't be just removed from our economies without terrible damage and human suffering. The major Oil companies are painfully aware of the effects of Oil depletion, and are investing trillions in alternate energy, but it takes time and R&D. In the meantime, the best that can be achieved is ''harm minimisation', and careful preparation to change to an economy no longer supported by Oil.
          Noz
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Spoken like a true lying corporate shill....nice work POLO...
      EZEE
      • 3 Years Ago
      They are all tax "breaks," or earnings that oil companies get to keep, not money paid out from the US Treasury. The amount of earnings not collected in taxes is about $4.3 billion per year -- about 0.2% of this year's deficit and enough to fund about 10 hours of current US government spending. A full $3.55 billion of that amount (82%) is due to the way taxes are treated for all industries or manufacturers.  To change these tax laws only for oil companies would require singling them out among all industries for special mistreatment.  (I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like a bill of attainder to me, something our Constitution forbids.) The only tax in which the oil industry seems to get special treatment compared to other industries is intangible drilling costs.  The amount of that subsidy?  That would be $0.78 billion per year -- enough to fund less than two hours of federal spending in 2011, and not even half the amount we are lending a foreign-owned and state-owned oil company for drilling offshore Brazil. Oil companies already pay tax rates of 40-50% of income.  For one company, Exxon, in one quarter of one year, that amount was over $8 billion, or almost double the so-called tax "subsidy" for all oil companies for an entire year. This one contradicts my first post on who makes more money: Exxon recently released its first quarter results for 2011.  The number grabbing the headlines was Exxon's profit: $10.65 billion in a single quarter.  The number not given quite as much exposure was the taxes it paid in that same quarter:  $8 billion, or 42% of income before taxes. And what does Exxon do with all that money it has left after paying $8 B in taxes?  It put $7.8 billion into capital and exploration, as part of its plans "to invest between $33 billion and $37 billion per year over the next five years to develop new energy supplies."
        PR
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        You certainly are not a lawyer. How can REMOVING a tax credit or subsidy that only the oil industry benefits from be a bill of attainder? If that is your standard, then the original law granting these special tax treatment would be the bill of attainder, and they should be thrown out as unconstitutional. There are 250 special tax treatments listed in this report. Yet you come back and blindly claim that "The only tax in which the oil industry seems to get special treatment compared to other industries is intangible drilling costs." Here is an idea for you, how about you READ UP on these 250 oil industry specific subsidies, and then you would know why your statement is wrong. Try learning something from here for once before you comment on what you clearly haven't taken the time to read. Again, all the numbers you keep quoting include stuff like highway taxes (that happen to be collected at the gas pump) and royalties that go to purchase the actual raw materials. Neither of these are taxes on the oil industry at all. You will continue to fail miserably to understand anything as long as you use these figures.
        Spec
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        You are really letting the oil companies bamboozle you. 42% is above the tax rate! You really think they are just giving the government extra money? No, they are calling things like royalties for accessing an area to be "taxes". Really? Do they think they have a right to just drill anywhere for free?
      Marco Polo
      • 3 Years Ago
      @electronx16 Honesty? let's see, hmmm...You hate Oil companies, but are not interested in solving the problem of Oil's most toxic product? So, you don't really dislike oil, just the wealth it generates. When someone offers me the opportunity to support a worthy cause, my natural response is, "great, sounds interesting, how do I go about it?" "Where can I find out more? " (If nothing else, this opens a dialogue which satisfies my own curiosity.) But you just become abusive! This is because you have no real interest in environmentalism outside of your armchair ! I offered to give you details, of how you could participate in assisting the cleanup of MV Reva disaster of the coast of NZ. Hundreds of thousands responded, but not you! You weren't even concerned. It shouldn't be up to me to motivate you to act on your loudly proclaimed convictions, you should be actively involved and seeking to encourage others. If you became involved, your bitterness may dissipate.
      Tweaker
      • 3 Years Ago
      What about the oil security costs we all pay?
        PR
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Tweaker
        And the health care costs we all pay through our collective health insurance payments. And the days of lost productivity due to these health problems.
      Marco Polo
      • 3 Years Ago
      @LTW No, I am not Polo, he was a strange character indeed! Now I seem to have attracted Noz, who follows me about like a naughty child chanting inane remarks. I have often wondered if Noz is one of DF's nom-de-trolls, but maybe he's just a fellow inmate!
      PR
      • 3 Years Ago
      This won't stop the people who intentionally blind themselves to oil industry subsidies and give-aways. And everyone else already knows oil is getting subsidized like crazy, but when the people try to get their will for an end to oil subisdies through Congress, all the bills get blocked by the Republican-run House, or fillibustered by the Republican minority in the Senate (or both). A number of such bills and amendments have died this way. As long as money == speech and businesses == people here in the US, this is never going to change. The money from the oil subsidies themselves is more than enough to keep buying off the Congress.
      electronx16
      • 3 Years Ago
      I already indicated that putting a number on the negative external effects of oil addiction isn't easy, but there is numbers out there that are rather staggering. Example: http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461 "According to a 2000 study for the Department of Energy, there is a significant cost attached to the mere fact of our dependence. Supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth suffered through the oil market upheavals have cost the U.S. economy around $7 trillion (1998 dollars) over the 30 years from 1970 to 2000.......These cost estimates do not include military, strategic or political costs associated with U.S. and world dependence on oil imports." "Milton Copulus, the head of the National Defense Council Foundation estimates the true cost of oil at a stunning $480 a barrel". "Due to the enormous military cost of protecting Persian Gulf imports, the hidden cost of oil from that region amounts to $7.41 per gallon of gasoline" The article gets a bit wild in the end but one thing is for sure: hardly putting any taxes on gasoline at all is not right, some of these negative external costs should be presented to the consumer and I'm not talking about a few cents here.... About Big Oil involvement in alternative energy: oil is at well over $100/barrel today, but where are is the significant production of fossil fuel substitutes supplied by Big Oil? Seems to me they are very busy giving corn ethanol a bad press, while being among the main profiteers of peak oil. And about joining a crusade with some anonymous person making big claims about himself: we have been over that....
      Marco Polo
      • 3 Years Ago
      Slow day ABG? Volt v Leaf not drawing the same response? Ah well, never mind, there's always that old chestnut, Oil Industry subsidies. always good for a fierce debate. guaranteed to bring out the ranters. But what's this? A subtle modification, slipped in unnoticed. 'By ending funds for clean energy, fossil fuel supporters have kept the field as uneven as possible, protecting their own interests at a cost to both government and consumers" . Ah ha, notice the new element? That's right, these days it's a bit baffling how with vast investments in bio-fuel, Solar, Geo-thermal etc, the Oil companies are illogical targets for conspiracies, (they would be conspiring against their own interests). But, "Fossil Fuel" well that leaves NG, and the Big Black (or brown ) Elephant hiding behind the sofa! Yep, its everyone's favourite whipping boy, the Coal Industry! Now, I'm not that fond of the Coal Industry either. However, coal has traditionally received a large number of incentives subsidies and tax breaks. Most of these were obtained by the power of the coal industry in olden times due to the voting power of the key state interests or essential nature to power US Industry and expansion. But adding all those extra subsidies quietly in to a debate about oil, is really cunning, but maybe I misjudge. I'm sure it was unintentional.
        EZEE
        • 2 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        oddly, after reading your post, it occurred to me, I am really not a an of oil subsidies (I know...not really subsidies but everyone will scream), but I am posting against the staggering lack of understanding on economics, commodities, and how all affect one another. The libertarian in me really would lie to scrap the entire wacky system and start over. Instead of 10's of thousands of different pages of taxes, why not simple end user taxes? It would all end up as 'overhead' anyway. I have seen studies that if you simplify taxes, businesses will show up, even I'd they lay the same, or more (no need for pikes of tax accountants and attorneys to figure out the system). You are more the expert on this than I, but the studies seem plausible. A while back, I went to the doctor for various check ups (luckily no rubber glove was needed). I wanted a full blood workip (sorry everyone, I am in good health) so the 115lb blonde (she was light weight and very aero, had good performance, bit was not particularly cheap) had asked me to find out how much blood workip cost. I asked the doc and it was around $250. She didn't have insurance, so I asked, 'if someone paid cash, then how much? The doc says, 'oh, then I can do it for $110.'. Something is wrong here, that I doubt more regulation will fix. I honestly think if we stopped screaming for a few moments, there could be common ground. The media, however, reporting stories in this matter, along with evil conspiracies, starving children, etc., only serve to stoke emotion and make common ground less possible. ADHD moment: Official Rating on 115lb blonde: :) light weight :) aero :( not cheap :) performance :( not electric 115lb Blonde Massage Therapist: 3 of 5 Happy Dans ADHD moment over.
        electronx16
        • 2 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        Marco Polo: The fact that ABG mentions Big Oil subsidies doesn't mean it has a slow day, nor is it part of some evil anti-oil conspiracy you seem to have detected here. The fact that most readers seem to agree despite your tireless "Big Oil is your best friend" message on this forum doesn't qualify their postings as "rants". The weird posting above of your fellow Big Oil fan EZEE however does and in a rather disturbing way. Is this the sort of "rational" postings you are advocating here?
          electronx16
          • 2 Months Ago
          @electronx16
          Settle down EZEE, no need to get all paranoid. Nobody is calling you a bastard or evil, that's all just in your head....And you're so funny!
          EZEE
          • 2 Months Ago
          @electronx16
          @elec You are correct. I have not been called those things. You have corrected me. Asstroll, brainless, mindless, etc., but not evil. Marco, has been called evil many times. And I am funny! Why not enjoy yourself? Everyone is so serious here. The odd reality is, I agree on subsidies, and don't like ethanol. I just don't hate the same as others. And good job sourcing your stuff there, I think I picked on you about that...
          EZEE
          • 2 Months Ago
          @electronx16
          @elec Actually scroll down and look at Nicks comment. He went off the deep end and alludes to physical violence. How ordinary.
          EZEE
          • 2 Months Ago
          @electronx16
          My wired post....let's see...first paragraph...I am not for subsidies. I am such a bastard. 2nd paragraph - scrap the system. Odd, it used to be liberals that suggested that. 3rd paragraph - pointing out how the system jacks up prices. Evil EZEE there! 4th paragraph - wishing for common ground between right and left. Yep, that would suck. We might get something done! 5th paragraph/ADHD moment - obvious humor using the Happy Dan scale on a human being (who is a hippie with a peace sign tattoo). Again, more proof that electronx is the alter ego of PR, as he always failed to see humor as well. Although I could be wrong on that. Now that I think of it, PR Is well sourced, I can't think of you ever using any source at all.
          Marco Polo
          • 2 Months Ago
          @electronx16
          @Electronix 16 Ezee may be may things, but he is a very patient and tolerant, contributor. He's even tolerant of DF! We do not employ terms like 'evil' , preferring to stick to rational and factual posts. Nor do 'most readers' dislike or oppose our views. In fact we receive considerable support. However, are you suggesting that it become a popularity contest? That no one should hold divergent views? If you can muster enough supporters, no matter how biased, they will prevail? Welcome back Bull Conner?
          EZEE
          • 2 Months Ago
          @electronx16
          And for the record, Dan even smiles and cracks jokes now and then. Dan.
        Noz
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Marco Polo
        What sort of person are you POLO that you support these types of companies? I'd like to know where you lack of moral code went somewhere a long time ago I imagine.... It says a great deal about your lack of character for sure.
      super390
      • 3 Years Ago
      I would direct you to conservative Andrew Bacevich's book, "The New American Militarism", in which he notes that as soon as the explicitly oil-driven Carter Doctrine was declared, the US military had made fighting right-wing Moslems co-equal to fighting the Soviet Union. Vast shifts in US doctrine followed, expensive weapons bought, many bases built in many countries, in turn inspriring fears of US takeover among individuals like Osama Bin Laden. We've forgotten when we were Saddam Hussein's ally against Iran, how Iraq bombed a US warship and yet we used that as an excuse to punish Iran, and even downed a civilian airliner. We've forgotten that Clinton turned against the Taliban regime only after it decided to award a pipeline contract to its masters in Pakistan instead of Unocal. We've forgotten the vast but stupid US schemes to take control of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the other ex-Soviet Central Asian republics to build a rickety, unnatural oil route via the BTC pipeline to Turkey so as to keep Russia from selling oil to Europe and undermining our hegemony. What is the cumulative cost of all these actions to defend the oil industry and control oil markets over 33 years? At least a third of our military budget, and all the cost of the actual wars we've fought in Iraq? That would be a $70 billion subsidy back in the Reagan days, rising to $200 billion a year now, plus $1 trillion for the wars. Of course it's easier to keep the oil empire going one more year rather than swallow the cost of changing our energy system, because THE CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THE EMPIRE! We all do, just as we all paid for the bailout. What is more insidous is that these trillions actually were paid to citizens who then acquired a financial interest in maintaining this status quo, from ordinary soldiers who can't survive getting dumped back into what remains of the civilian economy, to the princes of Wall Street. All these guys vote, and contribute to politicians. Recall the Duke Cunningham scandal, where fake defense contractors in San Diego were kicking their profits to a pro-war GOP congressman without ever completing their projects? As Bacevich notes, the greatest evil is that all this traps Americans into slavish worship of global power projection as the only way to protect what Cheney called "The American Way of Life", so that war without personal sacrifice has in fact become our way of life. To question oil increasingly is to commit the sin of "failing to support the troops". You can no longer say that our military exists for "the Common Defense".
        Chris M
        • 3 Years Ago
        @super390
        What a revisionist history! What "inspired" Bin Ladin is the dream of re-establishing the Caliphate, conquering the Middle East and the world, not "fear of US takover". Al Qaida attacks on other nations and rival Islamic leaders makes that clear. Clinton turned against the Taliban not because of any "pipeline deal" but because of Taliban support for Al Qaida terrorist actions in a series of bombings, most notably the African Embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack.
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @super390
        @Dave D's I apologise to Colonel Bacevich for my error. The listing for him was rather old and gave his active, not retired rank. In no way was I intending to express any view of the gentleman's credentials, and I agree that his service and academic record is worthy of respect . But, I have obtained a copy of book , which I look forward to reading. I was only poking a little fun at the use of CAPITAL letters to highlight a point.
        Dave D
        • 3 Years Ago
        @super390
        Wow, interesting post. I'm going to have to read Bacevich's book. I found his bio over on Wikipedia: "Bacevich graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1969 and served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War, serving in Vietnam from the summer of 1970 to the summer of 1971. Later he held posts in Germany, including the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the United States, and the Persian Gulf up to his retirement from the service with the rank of Colonel in the early 1990s. He holds a Ph.D. in American Diplomatic History from Princeton University, and taught at West Point and Johns Hopkins University prior to joining the faculty at Boston University in 1998." His son was killed in Iraq in 2007 but he wrote most of his books before that so I don't think sour grapes would have influenced his writings that much.
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @super390
        @Super390 Thank you for your review of Lt Col Bacevich's book. (I'm glad it wasn't War and Peace!). I liked your reference to "unnatural oil route via the BTC pipeline ", but you know, so few 'natural' pipeline occur in nature. Are well, you have finally realised that if people don't listen to your rantings, the employment of CAPITAL letters will browbeat them into submission!
          EJ
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Nice try to deflect a powerful post. Fail.
          Nick
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Marco Polo You picked on a couple words taken out of context.
          Dave D
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Marco, he retired as a full bird Colonel, not a Lt. Colonel, and he got his Ph.D. Don't know if you missed that or were trying to downplay his credentials, but when someone earns those kind of things they deserve the titles and respect.
      Dave D
      • 3 Years Ago
      Exactly what I was thinking. Who knows how they count this? If a lawyer is working for the oil lobby, do they count that as an oil lobbyist or a law lobbyist? That just doesn't seem right somehow that lawyers would be that far ahead of every other group. I'd have to see how they were counting this before I believe that one.
    • Load More Comments