Posted September 15, 2011
OK, America, you have a choice. To help fund job creation and grow the economy you can:
A) Raise taxes on one of the economy's best job generators (energy companies), which could impact investment, kill jobs and actually reduce revenue to government.
B) Grant America's energy companies more access to American energy resources - which won't require a tax increase and could produce a million additional jobs, $127 billion in government revenue and an additional 4 million barrels' worth of oil and natural gas per day.
Take your time. But as the following graphics show, policies that increase energy access and development win out across the board over the administration's proposal to raise energy taxes. On jobs, on the amount of revenue generated and on energy to run the economy, it's no contest. And here's the really good news: The positive benefits depicted below are well within reach.
Everyone wants more jobs. Check: According to new research by Wood Mackenzie, pro-energy development policies will clear the way for America's oil and natural gas companies to create an additional 1 million jobs by 2018, growing to 1.1 million by 2020 and 1.4 million by 2030. No tax increase necessary. Here's Wood Mackenzie's job-growth chart again:
The federal deficit needs cutting. Check: The pro-development path would generate cumulative revenue to the government of $800 billion by 2030. The president wants to increase taxes on the oil and natural gas industry to pull in $40 billion in new revenue over the next 10 years? How about this: Let's make it $127 billion by 2020 - without hiking taxes on job creators, impacting investment and actually reducing revenue to government by $29 billion, according to Wood Mackenzie.
Energy demand continues to grow. Check: Increased energy access could grow daily oil and natural gas production more than 10 million barrels' worth by 2030. With the right policies - opening federal areas currently closed to development and fully utilizing Canada's oil sands - 100 percent of our liquid fuel demand could be met domestically and through our partnership with Canada by 2026.
Bottom line: The administration's plan is temporary, a short-term influx of spending that officials hope will jump-start the economy. The pro-energy development approach is long-term, self-sustaining and borne by an industry that contributed $476 billion to the economy in 2010.
Jobs, revenue to government and energy security. America, it's your choice.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mark Green joined API after a career in newspaper journalism, including 16 years as national editorial writer for The Oklahoman in the paper’s Washington bureau. Mark also was a reporter, copy editor and sports editor. He earned his journalism degree from the University of Oklahoma and master’s in journalism and public affairs from American University. He and his wife Pamela live in Occoquan, Va., where they enjoy their four grandchildren.