Hacker News Reader

Comment by advisedwang | Hacker News Reader

Needed, but does this have any chance of passing?

Not sure, but there are climate activist groups pushing a call-your-rep campaign right now, which is where I learned about the bill.

[0] https://www.climatechangemakers.org/

[1] https://www.climatechangemakers.org/issue-briefing-ffs

Not this year, and not if Dems don't control the house next year. This is also an incredibly stupid thing to be pushing right before a pivotal election.

You need no further proof that the left isn't controlled by some elite secretive singular entity. Lefty groups keep stepping on obvious rakes like this one and "defund the police" -- the underlying policies may make actual sense but there's no understanding of optics or timing whatsoever.

> This is also an incredibly stupid thing to be pushing right before a pivotal election

Maybe for the democratic party as a whole, but it might be beneficial to the bill sponsor(s) if this wins votes in their own district. The main sponsor's district is Portland, OR so I suspect it's locally savvy for them.

So my questions was motivated by trying to understand if the bill is an actual attempt to pass legislation or just a few people scoring some green votes before an election by floating a bill they know is doomed.

It was introduced last year (before the gas price issue) and has gone nowhere.

No shot. Check out the cosponsors. Not a single R in sight.

But I thought R's hated government handouts

only to poor people

Yeah, poor people are sooooo unapreciative when we make the cost of gas $ 4.00 a gallon. Don't they know Saint Vladimir has a war to finance?

True, but making sure there is enough energy is more important to them (see Europe as an example of what happens when government fails at this).

Democrats also consider energy a priority, but don't like hydrocarbon fuel, so are conflicted with bills like this - I bet it won't get every Democrat on board either.

Also, the current situation isn't directly a subsidy, it's a tax reduction, which is sort of a subsidy if you squint, but it's different enough. Republicans do like tax reductions.

> I bet it won't get every Democrat on board either.

Oh, it's dead in the senate. There really is no way Joe Manchin would vote for this given the state he represents. West Virginia has WAY too much interest in burning coal.

There may also be others, but Manchin will happily take the blame to stop it from passing. His voting base will love him for it.

If they considered energy a priority they wouldn't have spent so much time/energy dismantling dams in the far west, during a water crisis.

First of all who is "they"? Then from what I can see all the dams that were removed were not very valuable for energy.

And finally the dams that were removed were small ones, not ones that are used to store water.

A dam doesn't work when the river runs dry.

> True, but

Not true though. It's something they talk but don't walk.

they also loved covid ppp loan forgiveness

They love corporate tax handouts.

Texas will literally buy the land for your factory, build it, and lease it to you for free. AND then they'll recruit and train all your employees for free.

Not when their donors are on the take.

This is empirically not true.

Of course, however, a tax cut is not a subsidy. Economic concepts can very easily be wrongly conflated with each other or misreported by the press or politicians. There's an obvious qualitative difference between a government subsidy (the act of taking property from some to give to others) and a tax break (the government merely stealing less).

As far as this bill specifically goes, I haven't read the entire thing, but the bullet points seem to be all about reducing tax burdens. As an overall opinion, I think more people and industries ought to have tax breaks.

Given the extreme shortsightedness of Europe's leaders in trying to tackle their energy needs, I have little doubt that this act will come back to bite all of us in some way.

Alaska just announced a record high PFD for this year, over $2B payout, highest in the programs 41 years. And the reasons for it being so high? “Energy costs and inflation” (totally unrelated side note: our Republican governor is up for re-election).

Check back after midterms.

Democrats still hold a narrow majority in the house so it could pass there, but could be killed by pro gas democrats. The senate will be almost impossible. This is likely to shift after the midterms.

Manchin will never support this. Dead on arrival.

He's a senator though, not in the house. So I think what I said stands, it could pass the house, but senate is very unlikely.

> is likely to shift after the midterms

Further from this bill’s chances. Almost irrespective of the partisan balance, given the candidates and political mood around energy prices.

The problem isn't D vs R, it's the risk of high paying oil jobs being lost, even if it isn't a lot of jobs these are the people that donate to campaigns and fuel their local economy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com