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
Would Obama please attack McBush's patriotism for supporting multinational oil companies over the USA economy and people?
Exactly - this "Country First" slogan is his weak point - Obama should attack that.
OIl Companies
Halliburton
"Globalization"
Iraq War
What about any of that puts "country first?"
So that would cost the treasury what?--say $300 billion. This is pandering and its stupid. Obama needs to stop saying stuff like this.
It wouldn't cost the treasury a cent. He is going to levy a tax on the oil companies to pay for it. The same oil companies whose profits are double what they were in 2000, just as a gallon of gas is double as well. See the connection?
I can't speak for their profit in 2000, as I can't find it in a cursory search. However, the price of gasoline has more than doubled. In fact, at it's peak, it was more than quadrupled.
It won't cost the Treasury a cent ... but it will cost the people in the form of higher gas prices. Do you think that the oil companies won't pass this tax along?
Look, it's taking money from the oil companies (excess profits tax) and giving it to the people. It's better than taking billions straight from the Treasury and spending them in Iraq.
Excess Profit Tax is a fallacy. You can not single out a specific company or industry to tax on the sole basis that the total dollar amount of there profits is too much. There is not a court in the land where this would hold up. You can't punish them for the price of oil. They do not have any control of the market price per barrel. If you can prove collusion you can fine them, but that is completely different. It is a ridiculous concept. Obama is either too ignorant to understand this or think the public is too ignorant to see he is lying.
You are quite the true believer. Ann rand your favorite? We can certainly revoke the oil depletion allowance and the 158B dollars per year in oil subsides, now can't we?
I dont care if you remove subsides. My point was you can't arbitrarily make up laws to fit a political need. Trying to pass off the Excess tax as even a possibility is insulting.
We renegotiated world war II contracts.
We have evidence of market supply manipulation by the oil companies.
We have been taken for a ride far too long by the oil companies.
I would prefer we investigate them for crimes and throw the executives responsible in jail.
But the oil companies behave as a monopoly, so we can "fine" them like a monopoly.
Sounds like a perfect example of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" . . . and its Ayn Rand by the way
Ya gotta love the oil corporations. They have no shame. Take the recent Supreme Court ruling lowering the Valdez punitive damages against Exxon from 2.5 billion to 500 million dollars. Hell, Exxon gave their retiring CEO almost 500 million dollars when he left Exxon, and they've been fighting those poor bastards in Valdez, Alaska for 19 fricken years!
The irony is that this is what you get when you vote against you own self interests. Alaska is one of the staunchest Republican states. They helped elect each of the Republican presidents, from Reagan and daddy Bush to W, who appointed the conservative justices that screwed the good people of Valdez. Now, just imagine a Supreme Court with three or four more ultra-conservative justices added by John McCain! Then the country will have truly gone facist with big business holding all the cards. Maybe Alaska will help get McCain elected so they can be forced to pay Exxon's 19 year battle court costs.
Thanks for the sensible article. If the majority of voters read and understood the Huffington Post, we wouldn't have to worry about this election. Since they don't and we do, let's brainstorm ways to to get the word out, not just to other members of the choir - OUT.
Here's an idea: let's bombard the networks involved in the debates with GOOD QUESTIONS.
From this article, how about: Senator McCain, you've advertised that you will "battle Big Oil," yet you promote off-shore drilling and oppose a windfall profits tax on Big Oil to provide rebates for American consumers. Senator, Exxon and other Big Oil companies are reporting record profits, why shouldn't they return some of their windfall to consumers who are paying $4 a gallon?
Remember, folks, this is brainstorming, so please ADD ideas. No need to eliminate any. Anyone who wants to should send any questions they want to the networks, questions you think of and/or questions that other people post. The more good questions they get, the better our chances that some ideas from some of them will end up in the debates.
Which networks are holding debates?
PBS is holding one of the Presidential debates and the Vice Presidential debate. CBS and NBC each are holding one of the remaining two Presidential debates. I love your idea. We may have a better chance with PBS since it appears the MSM is not asking the tough questions of McCain. So, it wouldn't surprise me if they still wouldn't ask them even if they got bombarded with them from us.
Thanks, Cyndie. I agree that we can most likely trust PBS's Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill to do a decent job. On the other hand, I'm not familar with Schieffer (CBS), and Brokaw (NBC) has always seemed to me to lean toward the right. (Still, all these networks are more promising than ABC or FOX.) In any case, we might as well try to give them some ideas. Thank you for your encouragement.
Thanks for the (sarcasm) notation. I never would have guessed.
So i suppose those of us that bought Microsoft should all be clamoring for a windfall tax on Microsoft? Perhaps Bill Gates should cut us all a rebate check.
Where does it end?
And who gets to decide when a company is making too much money? Do we really want government making that decision?
Perhaps we feel we're paying to much for a box of Mac and Cheese, well thats ok, we'll just tap the wealth transfer well and cut everyone a check for 96 cents and make Kraft pick up the tab.
bad example, with the way big government is going we won't be able to buy mac and cheese because some jerk is going to decide its unhealthy for us.
if you don't like microsoft than use linux. if you think kraft is too expensive, buy annie's organics. like it or not, if you drive a car you can't really avoid exxon-mobil. not to mention, why are we giving oil companies subsidies if they're making record profits? it reminds me of ol' dirty bastard, the millionaire rapper who received welfare checks. he went to jail for that, how is this much different?
besides, bill gates recirculates his money into worthy causes, unlike oil companies who raise a fuss about cleaning up their own oil spils.
and is big government more dangerous to you than big companies that strangle out all competition dictating what you can and can't buy?
Let’s define “excess profit” and kick this mob in gear…I’ll go get my rope.
...make them all pay
Your example of “choice” is flawed.
“if you don't like microsoft than use linux… use a different brand
if you think kraft is too expensive, buy annie's organics…use a different brand
if you drive a car… use a different product
...Why is it acceptable to import oil from countries that do not have worker protection and environmental standards? Where is the battle cry for the environment in the Middle East or the workers making pennies a day? …“not in my back yard”…….nice
Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing. If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.
Or consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn't Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?
Exxon is engaged in a strategic commodity that impacts on the lives of ordinary people. Oil, in other words, has a public interest dimension to it. Whether the people like it or not, the price of oil will affect them in a very significant way. Goggle's advertising service and Berkshire Hathaway's property and casualty insurance business are products of choice. People can do without them if they choose to. So, your comparison is fallacious.
Marxism is unAmerican
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that net cash farm income nationwide will hit a record $96.6 billion this year — up 10% from last year and 40% from 2006
If there is an "excess profits tax" on big oil...what's to stop big oil from passing that expense right along to the consumer? They seem to be good at that sort of thing.
Likewise, if big oil gets those offshore drilling rights...doesn't that just give them another reason to keep raising prices, since building up the necessary infrastructure will cost billions of dollars, and they aren't going to let that come out of their profits.
I agree with you. You speak the truth. Unfortunately, there are many ordinary Americans who will believe this kind of double-speak and will perceive McCain as what he says, not what he does.
This is where the mainstream media fails us. They are no longer engaged in reporting the real truths about either candidate but are instead trying to promote whatever agendas they are told to follow.
From the outside of America looking in it frustrates me that the MSM does not do a better job calling the politiicans on this duplicitous, dishonest behaviour. There needs to be better checks and balances or at the very least some journalists that are willing to do their jobs.
I agree completely that McCain has stooped to a complete low on this issue. However, I struggle with Mr. Borosage's statement painting McCain's proposals all about politics when compared to Obama's. I think the Obama's overall energy plan is more substantive than just politics. However, the windfall profits tax bit is purely politics. It's very similar to a gas tax holiday, which Obama wisely rejected, in that it really does nothing to help solve the problem. I'm not saying its not smart politics, but it is about politics, not about substance.
McCane and the Repugs are liers. They don't care about the American people or how tough a time some of us are having because of high gas prices.
If Americans were to receive the 1000 energy rebate from taxing the oil companies most of it would go back to them anyway so what's the big deal?
Mad Magazine politics has been dominant in the US for centuries. Now, with blogs and the new web 2.0+ internet news sources we are learning the truths about MM politics.
I've experienced outrage so often that I feel myself moving into the Mad Magazine Zone. I can almost see the venerable sage, Alfred E. Newman, standing before me smiling and offering the mantra, "What, me worry?"
Unfortunately you are "preaching to the choir" in this particular venue. Great article though. If only we could get this message out via Big Brother.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
