The communists are coming. Ever since Exxon-Mobile announced its third-quarter earnings of over US$9.9 billion yesterday, folks have been acting like the company is stealing from the poor.
Sure, Exxon’s profits are absurdly huge. But did it get that money unfairly? Should it be forced to spread that wealth? Absolutely not. The company earned that money fair and square. No Expedition-driving soccer mom has ever been forced to fuel up at one of the company’s stations.
One of the most disheartening things that I have read lately is how many big-oil critics are calling for Exxon to spend its profits researching and searching for alternative energy sources. That concept is about as absurd as forcing a tobacco company to fund a non-smoking campaign, but unfortunately that’s already happening.
Exxon-Mobile is in the business of extracting, refining, and selling oil. That is what it has always done, and it should not be forced from its profitable business model just because jealous anti-capitalists feel it doesn’t deserve what it has earned.
Many critics feel Exxon should reinvest some of its profits in constructing new refineries. These folks want to add more supply to the tight oil market. Yes, it would be nice if there were more crude supply, but, no doubt, it would have a negative effect on Exxon’s bottom line.
Until the U.S. burns its constitution and the “red” take over, no company should be forced by the government to take action that would negatively impact its bottom line. As long as people are willing to spend their money at gas stations, Exxon will continue to make huge profits. It’s the American way.
Andrew Snyder
Assistant Editor,
BreakAway Investor
Friday, October 28, 2005
Thursday, October 20, 2005
A Litmus Test for Federal Spending?
As part of the ongoing Katrina coverage, CNBC has had a feature on their morning Squawk Box show titled “Pork Busters”. The purpose of the show was to expose questionable spending items in the various bills approved by our elected “representatives”. The effort was meant to encourage Congress to re-prioritize the spending of our tax dollars in considering how to pay for the rebuilding of the Louisiana coastline which most of us agree does have national repercussions. After exposing a questionable item, the show would invite that item’s sponsor to appear live on the show to “defend his/her pork”.
One Congressman who agreed to appear on the show was Vermont State Representative Bernie Sanders (here is the link for the details:
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/releases/20050316183957.asp).
Bernie is an Independent who tends to vote with the Democrats and an avowed Socialist. His verbal defense of his pork was virtually verbatim from his press release:
"These projects represent a variety of important road construction and recreational trail initiatives across the state. Not only will they benefit Vermont from a transportation standpoint but they will also be good for Vermont’s economy. In the short-term jobs will be created to complete the projects and in the longer term these enhancements to Vermont’s transportation and recreational infrastructure will pay dividends for decades to come.”
When pressed by the Squawk Box host on the priority of this spending versus such items as rebuilding Louisiana, the Representative lashed out at the host with the usual class-warfare rhetoric about tax cuts for the rich, we’re all greedy for wanting to keep the money we earn, etc., etc., and the discussion basically ended.
The one question that was not asked, the one question that I feel is most pertinent to the debate is “what is the benefit of this spending to a taxpayer in Iowa?” The answer of course is none unless that taxpayer in Iowa is wealthy enough to spend time in snowmobiling Vermont. But with the median US income hovering around $55,000 per year, it is doubtful that this Vermont trail will benefit the general welfare of the American people.
Section 8 in Article 1 of the Constitution clearly states that:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare (note: not the war on poverty – entitlement kind) of the United States…(my emphasis). So how does this type of spending make it into a federal spending bill? I have no problem with Vermont wanting to improve its trail systems, but not with my money. If the Congress used Section 8 as the litmus test for any proposed spending (understanding that Medicare and Social Security are “self-funded), the federal budget could easily be cut by a third ($667 Billion) and overall federal tax rates could be reduced substantially.
Then all these state-specific spending programs could be put where they belong, in the state budgets and the states could raise taxes as they see fit to meet the spending priorities of their citizens. If Representative Sanders wants to raise taxes on the rich, he can run for Governor and tax the rich in Vermont to pay for their trails.
To see more examples of unconstitutional spending using your tax dollars, click the on word LINK below but I warn you, the information is graphic and very disturbing
One Congressman who agreed to appear on the show was Vermont State Representative Bernie Sanders (here is the link for the details:
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/releases/20050316183957.asp).
Bernie is an Independent who tends to vote with the Democrats and an avowed Socialist. His verbal defense of his pork was virtually verbatim from his press release:
"These projects represent a variety of important road construction and recreational trail initiatives across the state. Not only will they benefit Vermont from a transportation standpoint but they will also be good for Vermont’s economy. In the short-term jobs will be created to complete the projects and in the longer term these enhancements to Vermont’s transportation and recreational infrastructure will pay dividends for decades to come.”
When pressed by the Squawk Box host on the priority of this spending versus such items as rebuilding Louisiana, the Representative lashed out at the host with the usual class-warfare rhetoric about tax cuts for the rich, we’re all greedy for wanting to keep the money we earn, etc., etc., and the discussion basically ended.
The one question that was not asked, the one question that I feel is most pertinent to the debate is “what is the benefit of this spending to a taxpayer in Iowa?” The answer of course is none unless that taxpayer in Iowa is wealthy enough to spend time in snowmobiling Vermont. But with the median US income hovering around $55,000 per year, it is doubtful that this Vermont trail will benefit the general welfare of the American people.
Section 8 in Article 1 of the Constitution clearly states that:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare (note: not the war on poverty – entitlement kind) of the United States…(my emphasis). So how does this type of spending make it into a federal spending bill? I have no problem with Vermont wanting to improve its trail systems, but not with my money. If the Congress used Section 8 as the litmus test for any proposed spending (understanding that Medicare and Social Security are “self-funded), the federal budget could easily be cut by a third ($667 Billion) and overall federal tax rates could be reduced substantially.
Then all these state-specific spending programs could be put where they belong, in the state budgets and the states could raise taxes as they see fit to meet the spending priorities of their citizens. If Representative Sanders wants to raise taxes on the rich, he can run for Governor and tax the rich in Vermont to pay for their trails.
To see more examples of unconstitutional spending using your tax dollars, click the on word LINK below but I warn you, the information is graphic and very disturbing
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Moral Supremacy
Since I've been alive, it seems that the Left has believed that they possess a monopoly on moral causes. From the "war on poverty" to "death with dignity", the Left has been clever in their ability to use words to rationalize control away from the people of the United States for the "greater good". Click the word LINK for the latest example of this.
The Liberal Model
One of the unexpected effects of Hurricane Katrina is that it has exposed the deficiency of the Liberal Model as depicted in my last Blog. One of the very few "Blue States" left in the south, Louisiana has been a working microcosm of the liberal approach to government having been under Democratic rule at virtually every level (Governor, Mayors and State Senator) for almost 60 years. Closely matching the economic conditions of France and Germany, the State created a dependent Class that barely existed from entitlement to entitlement while the ruling class in government lived in their gated communities coming out every election cycle to blame Republicans and make more promises.
Click on the word LINK to view the full article
Click on the word LINK to view the full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)