Outside the Beltway is talking about the Windfall Profit Tax that Hillary and Obama are pushing hard on:

However, one thing that I did notice when I was doing a little google-fu on the issue is that there appears to be approximately 20 to 50 billion dollars spent by the federal government per year on direct subsidies (as opposed to tax breaks) given to the oil industry each year. Unfortunately I can't pin down the exact number any better than that–it appears to vary every year and spread out amongst different agencies. Still, the GAO should be able to track the exact numbers down, so instead of an extra tax on oil companies, why not just eliminate their direct subsidies? Not only would that generate more revenue than the "windfall tax" (estimated to be $15 billion), but it would do so without getting the federal government into the problematic business of deciding how profitable companies are allowed to be.

I couldn't agree more... but why stop with oil companies?  We should be eliminating all corporate welfare.  If a company can't stand on its own without government assistance, than it should go out of business.  It's really that simple.  It's the same reason why the government should not run any programs that can be run privately.  Tax dollars have a way of propping up failed ideas because it's easy to collect taxes at the point of a gun versus convincing people to buy something.

But why is this ideas of a "Windfall Profit Tax" so popular vs. eliminating the direct subsidies?  Because the former can be advertised as punishment for doing something wrong (as if running a profitable business is evil), while the latter would force politicians to admit that they were giving welfare to oil companies for years prior (and what politician wants to admit that?).

It's not about the money, it's about the story you can tell.