According to the Pew Research Center the top two public priorities for 2012, by large margins, are the economy and job creation.  So surely the White House has a plan, and they do.  And with a slight modification of the chart posted by TPM the other day, here it is:

More on higher energy taxes here and here, and why that growth line should be higher here.

Update: The author has changed the article, without noting so. Original article here. The new article suffers from many the same problems in that it fails to note that the majority of the money involved is through government efforts to lower prices in developing countries.  As the IEA notes ending this support will shift "the burden of high prices from government budgets to individual consumers…" and that “…low-income households are likely to be disproportionately affected by the removal…”

We see a lot of false arguments about “subsidies” for the oil and natural gas industry, but this tweet caught us by surprise:

First, as we have to explain every time, the oil and gas industries don’t get tax credits (which reduce taxes dollar for dollar) or grants from the government. They get t... more »

With the U.S. Senate getting ready to debate proposals that would raise taxes on American energy companies, the White House blog spins:

"Instead of subsidizing the fossil fuels of the last century by giving away $4 billion of taxpayer money each year to oil companies that are more profitable than ever, we should be investing in a clean energy future—especially when gas prices are high and drivers, whose budgets are already stretched thin, are feeling the pain at the pump."

In reverse order, taking on the White House’s points:

Yesterday’s energy – We thought the administration had shelved this rhetoric, but it’s back – despite government data showing that oil and natural gas not only is today’s energy, it’s tomorrow’s as well. According to the Energy Information Administration m... more »

Yesterday, we discussed the president’s 2013 budget proposal to repeal the Section 199 manufacturer’s deduction for oil and natural gas companies – showing the disconnect between his call for more domestic oil and natural gas production and boosting U.S. manufacturing. Today, let’s look at another proposed energy tax increase in the president’s spending plan: repealing the expensing of intangible drilling costs (IDC).

Repealing IDC would generate $13.9 billion for the U.S. Treasury over 10 years. But it would eliminate a 99-year-old section of the tax code that has fostered innovation and exploration in the oil and natural gas business – playing a major role in the development of our energy resources for nearly a century.

Here’s what the president said in his State of the Union addre... more »

The president’s State of the Union address last month had lots of good stuff in it about domestic oil and natural gas production. Unfortunately, the president’s actions are speaking louder than his words.

His just-released 2013 budget includes proposals to increase taxes on oil and gas companies – more than $86 billion over 10 years – that would take the country in the wrong direction on energy. Research shows higher energy taxes would discourage production, lead to fewer well-paying American jobs and increase our reliance on imports.

Today, let’s take a look at one of his tax-hike proposals – repealing the Section 199 manufacturer’s deduction only for oil and natural gas companies. Benefit to Washington: $11.6 billion over 10 years.

Here’s what the president said back on Jan. 24: