Not that unreasonable when that “one lone Democrat candidate” is a sitting senator and Senate Majority Leader at that.

To understand it better, few would have cared if some folks broke into a room in the Watergate Hotel if they just did it for themselves. If they did it for the President of the United States, it was more important. If the Senate Majority Leader is for sale–or even bought and paid for, that’s more important than if some unelected candidate might sell out if elected. (I don’t think he is, but you can see where it would be a bad thing, right?)

There’s the other aspect of the statement — that minerals extraction get a depletion allowance (or whatever it is called lately). If some do and some don’t, it’s reasonable to wonder why they’re treated differently. If politicians are saying some should continue to get it and others shouldn’t, it’s reasonable to wonder why they want a law which applies unequally.

Political payoffs present a possible explanation (for the less trusting).

David for honest politicians

I doubt tallyho cares whether I do or not. I know I don’t care who donates to which politician as long as the donations are freely available to all voters.

I did the search to see how hard it was to find the source. The one I cited was secondary source but it referenced primary source. (Or maybe it was tertiary source referencing secondary source.) Primary source is supposedly definitely non-partisan but all people hold some sort of prejudices which make them accept some statements and reject others independent of whether or not they are true.

Everybody tells me Fox News is slanted so I don’t watch it, but then I don’t watch the news very much anyway — too depressing. If their bias is so strong as to make them make things up, that should be easy to prove.

IF

I keep seeing a bias in terminology which calls a depletion allowance a subsidy. To my way of thinking, a subsidy is giving people money, not just not taking it away from them. Maybe that’s my bias.

David considering sources,
searches and biases

I said…(chuckle) tallyho is fortunate to have you to do his/her research and citing.

David said…”That’s an interesting article unless you believe everything Fox News says is a lie. (I don’t but some seem to.)”

I said…Certainly not everything. As the saying goes, even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.

Jane said…”There is no economic mystery here! If this keeps up we will become a third world country. Stop passing out money to other countries and take care of our own for awhile!”

I said…Apparently, even the Brookings Institution is starting to agree with you, Jane. (Tuesday,8/2/11 article by William G Gale). The Republican whuppin’ of Obama in the budget battle moved us a bit closer to parity with the 3rd world. But at least our rich folk “job creators” don’t need to be concerned by this latest mess.

I don’t know where he got his information, but typing “Harry Reid gold mining support $750,000” in the search engine showed several pages, all referencing the Center for Responsive Politics. Picking among the top selections:

From: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/18/minerals-mined-federal-land-spared-taxes-aided-senator-reid/

“Since taking office, Reid has received $750,000 in campaign contributions from the mining industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That number includes $127,000 from Nevada’s two largest gold producers in the 2010 election. Together, those two companies had profits of $5 billion last year yet they paid taxpayers nothing for minerals taken off public lands.”

That’s an interesting article unless you believe everything Fox News says is a lie. (I don’t but some seem to.)

It also includes the statement:
“A royalty or fee represents an annual percentage the federal government charges based on the value of the resource extracted from public lands. For oil and other fuel sources, the numbers are in the double-digits.
The government receives 12.5 percent in royalties for onshore oil and gas while the royalties for offshore drilling amount to 18.75 percent. For coal, that number is 8 percent for underground mining and 12.5 percent for surface mining.
For gold, silver, uranium and copper mining: 0 percent”

David citing a source
and a system of searching