The Audacity of Contempt
Take gas prices, the most pressing issue on the minds of Americans. Offer a blatant ploy that in fact won't help -- but will profit Big Oil. Pocket over a million in contributions from oil executives and use the money to put up an ad promising to take on Big Oil.
Call it the audacity of contempt. John McCain seems intent on proving that it is possible to scorn Americans into voting for him. Consider McCain's latest ad in the context of his "drill, drill, drill" energy policy. The text of the ad reads:
"Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago. Only McCain has taken on big tobacco, drug companies, fought corruption in both parties. He'll reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil, make America prosper again. He's the original Maverick...
"Battle Big Oil." Say what?
This is the same John McCain who just made off-shore drilling for oil a centerpiece of his campaign, reversing his longstanding opposition to it. He did so, not incidentally, while on his way to Texas for a series of fundraisers. The result unleashed a gusher of donations for Big Oil executives -- according to Campaign Money Watch, a nifty 1.2 million from Texas gas and oil interests in June alone, the very month McCain came out for drilling. He no doubt was told what to expect from the dozens of oil company lobbyists and retainers that reportedly are working with or raising money for his campaign.
Exxon reports an $11.7 billion profit for the last three months -- a new record in the history of corporatedom. The big five pocketed more than $140 billion last year. So Barack Obama suggests that we provide every American with a $1000 tax rebate to help pay for rising prices, paid for by levying an excess profits tax on the oil companies.
What does the maverick battler of big oil say? No way. McCain angrily dismisses the idea, saying that it would lead the oil companies to reduce their drilling in the US.
Now, all of this is based upon what might generously be called a big lie. The Big Oil companies, who hold leases for millions of acres that they aren't drilling on, have no intention of drilling for oil off our shores in the near future. They are simply looking to use the crisis to accumulate rights to drill in the future.
Moreover, even if they started tomorrow, it wouldn't help. As Bill Sher of the Campaign for America's Future detailed, Bush's own Energy Department reports that off shore drilling would produce no relief until about 2030. (McCain disputes that saying that we'd see oil in a year or two. His source? Anonymous Big Oil executives who no doubt have only the public's interest in mind). And once the oil came on line, the Energy Department tells us, it would save us about 6 cents a gallon off the price of gas. (Ironically, McCain regularly sneers Obama for suggesting that simply filling our tires would have more effect on supply and demand than drilling off shore. But again, according to the Bush Environmental Protection Agency, Obama had that right. If every American kept their tires filled, they'd save the equivalent of 12 cents a gallon starting tomorrow. Drilling sounds muscular but it is simply hot air that would be better used filling up tires.
But this isn't about policy; it's about politics. McCain pretends he's for action now. He paints Obama as out of touch. The fact that the plan would cater to the interests of the oil companies and not the pocketbooks of Americans is beside the point. After all, John McCain is the maverick, ready to "battle Big Oil."
Will it work? Daily tracking polls suggest McCain has been gaining on Obama. And other than Nancy Pelosi, Democrats have been deciding to switch rather than fight on off-shore drilling.
But there is one problem. Americans really are hurting this year. It isn't just a "mental recession," it's the real deal. And they are paying greater attention than ever before. This week, Obama released a full-scale plan to move to energy independence, investing $150 billion over 10 years in renewable energy and conservation, providing subsidies to ensure that the US captures some of the new green auto and appliance markets of the future. That puts us on a long-term path to a sustainable energy future. In the short term, Obama takes on big oil with the excess profits tax to help Americans struggling with the cost of gas and food. McCain has a pretty good long term plan also. The differences would be worth debating.
But one difference is clear. McCain's not about to support a tax on the big oil companies whose executives are helping to fund his campaign. But that won't stop him from selling himself as a maverick promising to "battle Big Oil." If nothing else, he has the audacity of contempt for the very voters he needs to win.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
How is it that the Oil companies have NO problem being PUBLICALLY SUBSIDIZED by PUBLIC TAX MONEYS ....and corporations are not being taxed a HIGH rate as they should be.??..ask Warren Buffett!
MINI-b (mini-bush) is nothing more than a pawn for corporate America. The bottom line is the bottom line with them. The fact that Americans are suffering is of no concern to them. You can bet who they would run to if their corporations were in trouble. You guessed it, Uncle Sam.
What a racist point of view.
When did corporations attain their own racial identity?
That doesnt even make sense.. what did they say that was racist??? Or are you trying for sarcasm but failed.
Racist as in who?
Seriously, the race card again? I just got over it form last week who did it this time?
Since there is no change in oil company profit margins the reason for higher profits must be related to more consumption of their product.
Since the middle class are by and large the owners of big oil companies any "excessive profits" tax would be a tax on the middle class. A scheme to make the messiah look like Santa Clause and confiscate the wealth of the middle class.
The government already 'makes' (read confiscates) much more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies, more than twice as much......
Your points are very well taken, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone on this blog that won't call you a "rethuglican big oil shill" regardless of how correct you are.
You say that Exxon paid more than twice as much in taxes than it made in profit. It is actually over 3 times as much. Exxon paid in excess of $34 billion in taxes on the $11 billion profit. Of course the left doesnt report that part of it.
Exxon paid $34 billion in taxes on their profit or revenue?
(Answer): In 2006, Exxon had a gross income of $377.6 billion.
This suggests they paid well under 10% of their revenue -- assuming your $34 billion in taxes is for 2007.
No business who earns a profit pays taxes on their profit only. The pay taxes based on their revenue. (Small, medium, large or mega-corporation).
Nice try, but just smoke and mirrors, my friend.
Again, as most of you NEVER do, quote your sources! You could be making it up for all us "lefties" know.. you want to be believed? And also a source with a .org behind it is most credible on average as its usually non-profit.
And your logic is stupid that they "Paid 34 billion in taxes on 11 billion NET profit.. no.. they paid $34 billion in taxes on their total gross earnings at a rate of 41%.. which is typical of corporations of that size. (Source quote from http://see
And we are not counting the 70% of their company's income that comes outside the U.S.. Have to find the country they pay taxes to elsewhere, to further see their profits. They only have to file a tax return on earnings from the U.S.
After I pay all my bills and cost of living, what I can put away as pure profit is not as high as they have it.
And your proof that their profit margins are the same as before....
Your proof that they are different and outrageous are.....?
There must be something wrong with oil companies having huge profits by digging what was there in the land of the country. Executives of any kind of companies earning huge wage and bonus compared with their own employees show that the wages are unfairly disproportional to the work of the earners but it is more so with oil companies. Of course in our system, there is nothing wrong with huge profits but when things got out of proportion, we have to look at it carefully or not only consumers, but the entire economy will continue to be hold in ransom by these big oil companies or oil-rich countries.
By and large executives are paid for doing something that not many other people can do. As a result, they demand a higher wage, which in my mind they rightfully deserve. If I had the ability to manage a multi-national corporation with thousands of employees and wanted to do so, I would hope to be paid pretty well. The job's probably stressful enough to take years off your life.
I'd argue that the CEO of Exxon or Google, or any other successful company probably has more valuable talent and ability than Lebron James.
There is nothing wrong with making huge profits. This is a problem the public created themselves somewhat buy neglecting to buy gas efficient vehicles over the years. If you bought a gas guzzler that gets 10 miles to the gallon when gas was $1 a gallon, if you buy a Prius now (est. 50 mpg) you will be paying the same for gas.
My problem with the oil companies is that they got huge tax breaks (corporate welfare). Pubs are now saying 'Obama wants to take other people's money'. The problem is the oil companies already took OUR money with those huge tax breaks ( pub standard issue hypocrasy is that they conveniently forget things like that ).
Did the oil companies lie to congress, or more likely it was a nudge nudge wink wink, we'll sell this to the public.
They cannot be trusted. In my opinion anything an oil company exec or pub congressman says is a bald face lie, any word that comes out of their mouth. If they say grass is green I will double check.
Time to get tough with the oil companies. Go Obama. Make it $3,000, and take it out of the oil co's profits. (I'll even forgo mine).
How is a tax break taking money from you and I? These companies are paying 40% to 45% in taxes, even with the tax breaks. That is an outrageous amount of money. Allowing the government to take money from oil companies will open the door to all businesses. What is to stop the government from attacking more industries.
Allowing the government to take profits from business is communisim.
The answer is always less government!!
These companies are paying 40% to 45% in taxes, even with the tax breaks.
Where do you get your numbers? Their annual reports show no such numbers:
XOM (ExonMobil)
Total revenues and other income 404,552
Sales-based taxes 31,728 - hardly a cost, passed though to consumers
Other taxes and duties 40,953 - less than 10% of total revenues
I call bullshit on your assertion. Get the facts first.
Once again, another ridiculous branding of liberal fiscal policy as communism, which is just an absurd statement and shows that you obviously have no idea what communism is in an attempt to demonize policy with an anachronistic slur. "Allowing the government to take prfits from business" is not communism, it is called taxes, and its how governments are supposed to fund their activities instead of taking out hundreds of billions of dollars in loans from foreign governments. Also, your facts are wrong. You are putting forward the base tax rate with no mention of the HUGE amount of tax breaks and subsidies available for oil companies. They actually pay more like 30-35%. And hey, guess what? That's about what I pay and I'm certainly not pulling in $40 billion a year.
On top of that, you are making a very thin slippery slope argument. Do you really think that after putting addition taxes on the oil industry, the single most profitable industry with several of the largest corporations in the world that have just posted record-breaking profits, they are going to start hitting other industries harder during a recession? That's just stupid.
Go read a book.
"The answer is always less government
Sir, do you suggest the same answer to the undocumented immigrant issue? 'Always', as with all absolutes, is a two-edged word.
WRONG, even a quick Google search reveals that Big Oil's tax rates are more like 35% WITHOUT the breaks. And for the record, allowing the government to take profits from business in not communism as you claim but rather the definition of a tax. Communism would be the government actually running the company, taking all profits and redistributing it.
If the answer is always less government then I guess the perfect government would be none at all...righ
In the future NCWrong you should keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you are an idiot rather than opening it and confirming the fact.
Obviously, you can't read a financial statement and are making this up. The highest corporate rate possible is 35%. Then consider they can bury improved earnings as cost in bonuses and salary increases. And the tax breaks they get means John McCain will either have to offset them with increasing your taxes or borrow more money from the Chinese through treasury notes to cover them. That means he's billing my grandchildren for the tax breaks he's giving the oil barons.
"...contem
That, if true, would make Sen. McCain an elitist in the most damning sense of the word.
Oil companies are not doing anything illegal or wrong. They are allowed to make as much money as possible..
Obama's energy policies may sound good to the uninformed but will throw this country into chaos like we've never seen before.
Try to actually prove your assertion that the oilcos are only making 8 cents per gallon of gas! Go ahead, try it! You'll find that it's impossible!
The REASON that it's impossible is that out of the approx $4 gal of gas, you are spending around 50 cents in taxes. That includes state, county, federal, etc.... You are paying about 10 cents to the gas station. You are paying around 50 cents to the transportation company which moved the gas to the station, and is almost certainly owned by the oil company. You are paying around 50 cents to the refiner, which is ALSO almost certainly owned by the oilco. You are paying the REST to the oilco directly. This means that out of a gallon of gas, at $4, you are paying anywhere from 50 cents to 60 cents to someone who is NOT the oilco, depending on whether they own the gas station or not! subtract their actual costs (transportation, refining, and pumping) and you are STILL paying over $2 to the oilco in PURE PROFIT!!!
Thank you for so clearly laying this out!
well said!
You forgot to mention the money that goes to the people in the Middle East that are extracting the oil. Exxon has to buy the crude before they can refine it. This is the whole point behind drilling the in the US. It will cut out the Middle Eastern oil companies.
If, as Obama wants to do, every family gets $1000, all that money suddenly put into the economy will certainly result in higher prices to soak it up just like the last 2 rebates have been absorbed b y the higher energy prices. No plasma TVs for you.
This is a trick that will work.
If the tax goes through the profits of a political enemy (oil companies) is given to families with Obama getting the credit as the one who gave it to them.
If the Republicans block it they are accused of protecting the oil companies.
Win-Win. There is nothing the republicans can do.
Sure there is. They can do what they've done so well in the recent past. They can lie. And they will.
Unfortunately I don't think its constitutional. I'm not sure which article, but I believe its illegal to tax a specific group (i.e. oil companies) and give that money to another (i.e. Middle and working class families) I'm not 100% on this one, but I remember being taught that one of the New Deal programs that got shot down by the Supreme Court was on these grounds. I don't remember which one, but thats what I was taught in Grade 10 US history. But, O is very smart, taught constitutional law, and has surrounded himself with some very good advisers, so I'm sure his plan includes loopholes that get around that particular clause. I hope
See Jimmy Carter's Windfall Profits Tax:
http://en.
Funny how what goes around, comes around.
Jim
We can drill for all the oil we want, but that will not change anything. Why? Because it is all about REFINING CAPACITY!
Even the OPEC ministers back in 2006 had mentioned that it was this issue, not overall supply, that was the problem.
And when Congress had dragged the oil executives to Washington, a Shell exec was quizzed on why one of their most profitable refineries (I beleive it was located in California) was slated to get shut down, he had stumbled and bumbled for an answer.
Unless refining capacity is increased, then the point for drilling more oil is moot.
Bullshit.
Import finished product , not crude and use US refining capacity for US produced oil.
First, have you even considered the DANGER in shipping finished gasoline? The reason that they don't do so is that it is MUCH more dangerous than crude!!
Good point. Big Oil manipulates refining capacity by scheduling "routine maintenance" right before peak driving season to create the illusion of a shortage. Or, they will have a "small fire" in a refinery which will diminish capacity for a few months. These clowns are killing our country and we need to get serious about solving our energy problems permanently. That means removing oil from the equation once and for all.
This is funny, Ok, McCain might have gotten a million dollars from oil. Obama has gotten money from Oil too.
Obama wants to tax the windfall (unexpected) profits from oil. How about we tax some of the windfall profits of some of those rich hedge fund managers like Soros who have already donated 20 million to Move On (which will give Obama millions in adds alone).
Oh, thats right, Obama just tax the oil billionaires because its fashionable, lets not forget that the fastest growing group of millionaires and billionaires in this nation are from hedge-funds, and lets not forget that they are tanking our economy and were responsible for the high spike in oil prices this past year.
Lets not forget that Soros' and other groups speculating was what helped the economic crashes of Thailand, Russia, and Mexico in the past 12 years. Obama won't mention them because they support him and give him money. Maybe in his upcoming vacation, he will visit Mexico and Europe, to see how the dollar has appreciated on the peso almost three-fold since its collapse due to their crisis, and then go to Europe to see how ruined our dollar is compared to those western economies.
What about the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008?
I'm not sure honestly, It seems Obama has been absent most of 2008, since becoming a senator in 2005 he has already passed Hillary Clinton, who was sworn in in 2001 in missed votes, and on the votes he has made, he is classified as a rank-and-file democrat.
http://www
If the government takes - through a "Windfall profits tax" - the "excessive" profits from the oil industry (and who decides what that amount is?), what's to prevent the oil industry from buying only the amount of oil needed to make a profit below that taxable amount? There will be absolutely no incentive for them to make over a certain amount of profit, and to avoid paying a "Windfall profit" they will certainly cut the amount of oil they purchase. Most companies I know of avoid paying excessive taxes. The oil industry will be no different.
Do liberals ever think about things like that?
Yes. They do. Thank you for asking. They have thought about it and decided you're wrong.
:-)
The oil companies will only be paying that tax on SOME of their excess profit. The remainder is still well worth bringing in. It's still profit - even after taxes.
"They have thought about it and decided you're wrong."
Did they? You (they) failed to mention how an "excess" profit will be assessed. If an oil company makes $10 billion in profit in a quarter and is assessed $5 billion in a "Windfall profit tax", what will prevent them from cutting future oil purchases to avoid paying that $5 billion in the next quarter? Eventually the U.S. oil industry will purchase only enough oil to make a "decent" profit.
Reduce our 2009 taxes by 1,000 and put the $$$ toward education l.
And what about those of us who are paying less than $1,000 in taxes?
Give them the difference in a cash rebate.
>And once the oil came on line... it would save us about 6 cents a gallon off the price of gas.
>If every American kept their tires filled, they'd save the equivalent of 12 cents a gallon starting tomorrow.
Don't confuse the neocons with facts, it gives them a headache.
Did Obama think up that tire filled with air business all by himself.. Wow. That Harvard education really has paid off. However, that information has been everywhere for many years. You have to go out of your way to miss it.
You mean like the combination of more than 50% of Americans (unfortunately including myself most times....) who habitually DON'T check their tire pressure AND the ENTIRE neocon leadership?
Really? then how did McOil miss it?
Such as the governments own website: http://www
So why did McCain miss it? How about...
McCain graduated 894 out of 899.
Compare that with Obama, who graduated J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard and president of the Harvard Law Review.
We've had 8 years of the dumb guy, enough is enough. Vote for the smart guy.
I bought groceries today. The loaf of French bread I paid $1.33 for last week cost me $1.50 today.
A half gallon of 2% milk was another 12 cents higher, and a 10 lb. sack of potatoes that cost me $3.97 a month ago was $5.97 today. For retired people living on a fixed income, these steadily rising prices are really starting to hurt. Something's got to give.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
