Don't do that. Oil companies are making profits. With those profits come two options: a) invest in capital(financial or equipment); or b) repay investors through dividends(who are assumed to be wealthy individuals, something Democrats do not want to see occur).
In reality they are probably pension funds and corporate investors. Your statement means that you plan to take a profitable industry and make it less profitable, as opposed to using the profitable industry to create jobs. One could argue the redistribution of wealth theory, but from a business perspective it costs time, and time cost money.
During the time it takes to move that money into another industry, lets say Healthcare for example, momentum would have been lost. There is going to be a delay between the time Healthcare firms, Hospitals and HMO's, receive the money (through direct appropriation, earmarks, or tax breaks) and the time that they become profitable enough to start hiring. Help gear the unemployed for jobs provided by the oil industry. Maybe even give average citizens a "special" tax break for moving, if the job is related to the oil industry. If job creation and not re-election is the issue, then the subsidy should continue.
About the Author: Kerry Baynes was born on May 9, 1980. He currently attends Bloomfield College in New Jersey, his single residence for the past 15 years. He holds a degree in Business Management, and has 2 years of legislative policy experience. He is the manager of Alpha Strategy Group(ASG) a small Urban Media company.