• Friday, November 20, 2009 Latest Update: 4:41PM
Daniel Englander | July 30, 2008 at 5:46 AM 2 Comments

Senate Republicans (Mostly) Vote Against ITC

Shame on you, Harry Reid.

At 11:50 a.m. today the bill containing extensions for the production and investment tax credits was voted down in the Senate. Democrats failed to gain the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture and start floor debate on S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Family, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008, picking up only 51 votes in favor compared to 43 against the motion. Senators McCain and Obama abstained, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) voted against the motion. This is the fourth time this summer the Senate has failed to move ahead with debate on production and investment tax credits, dampening hopes that the tax credits will be extended past 2008.

The bill included $18 billion in tax credits for the renewable energy industry, as well as $8 billion for infrastructure repair and improvement, and a short-term fix for the alternative minimum tax. To pay for the tax credits, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) again moved with the proposal of eliminating the $54 billion tax loophole for offshore profits earned by multinational corporations and hedge fund managers.

But why would Harry Reid vote against the tax credits? His state, which he’s referred to numerous times as the ‘Saudi Arabia of solar’, is a hotbed of renewables activity. It might have something to a deal he’s offered to Senate Republicans on amendments to an energy bill that includes provisions for lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling. His nay vote good be a sign of good faith to Republicans, or maybe he just sat on the wrong buzzer.

Comments [2]

  • disdaniel 08/1/08 5:14 AM

    Agreed.
    Reid made a procedural vote to keep the bill around for another day. 
    Although I’m happy to learn that some conspiracy theorists are still alive and well smile

    Reply
  • Tomas Martin 07/30/08 9:03 PM

    I think you’ve got it wrong on Reid’s vote. As Majority Leader he often votes against a bill he’s proposed to table the motion. It’s happened a few times in the past where he’s voted against a bill he’s for purely so the bill isn’t “defeated”, merely sent back to the comittees to be rewritten. This then allows him to bring the bill back for another vote later in the year, rather than if it had been “defeated” it would be removed from the agenda. I suspect that’s what’s happened here again.

    Reply

Green Light

Greentech Media's Green Light blog covers the full-scope of the greentech world, while expanding the range of our daily news reporting with brief and insightful blog posts from our Greentech Media editors, GTM Research analysts and numerous guest bloggers.

.