Six House Dems Would Confiscate Oil Company Profits
by Steve Maley
Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D’OH), have filed a bill aimed at controlling gasoline prices. Styled the “Gas Price Spike Act”, H.R. 3784 would establish a “Reasonable Profits Board” which would have the power to confiscate 100% of oil company profits above a level that they deem to be “reasonable”.
I know: “You had me at ‘Kucinich’.”
Kucinich is either a naive fool, a craven panderer to his electorate, or a throwback to Soviet-style central planning. That he could find five other elected nitwits (Reps. Woolsey, Langevin, Conyers, Fudge and Filyers) to put their names on such an anti-capitalist, unconstitutional fantasy is an indication that the Far Left Wing of the Democratic Party has left the ranch.
Consider, too, what it says about “Republican” presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who recently declared that he would consider Kucinich for a cabinet post in a Paul Administration.
Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich, who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance.
The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and [natural] gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.
The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members “shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board.”
Oil companies would only be able to make less than a reasonable profit without penalty. Anything over 105% of reasonable would be taxed at 100%. Proceeds of the confiscation would be dedicated to tax credits for high-milage vehicle purchase and mass transit subsidies for the poor.
Peeling back the layers of stupidity in H.R. 3784 would be akin to peeling an artichoke. In the interest of time, I will cut to my central point.
Implicit in the very suggestion that a Windfall Profit Tax is called for is the notion that somehow the oil companies are able to manipulate the price of oil, and hence, gasoline.
Gasoline prices are at historically high prices. Despite the spike above $4.00 per gallon in 2008, you actually paid 10% more at the pump in 2011.
When we refer to the industry as “oil and gas”, we mean “oil and natural gas”, not oil and gasoline. All oil companies make a substantial fraction of their revenue — many more than half — from natural gas.
The price of natural gas has plunged to 10 year lows recently as a result of warm winter temperatures, slack industrial demand and burgeoning supplies.
Natural gas prices have fallen to levels that make it difficult to justify drilling for more. Many of the new supplies of gas that come on will be incidental to the successful search for oil.
I challenge anyone who believes that oil companies control the price of oil and gasoline to explain how they do it, and why they seemingly have no control of natural gas.
I don’t often do this, as in, send you to another site, but this is just too critical. It is especially important if you are currently supporting or are considering supporting Newt Gingrich. He is NOT the conservative he claims to be! He is not a Constitutionalist. Please click on the link below and listen to both clips in their entirety. Pass it on to anyone who supports Newt.
We all remember the failed solar company & friends of Obama, Solyndra. You know the one. They stole a half a billion dollars of our money. Yeah, that one.
Well the hits, or scandals, just keep on comin!
The following is a post election anaylsis by british reporter Toby Harden of the UK Daily Mail. Sometimes it’s fun to see if their prospective is any different from our own. I think he is fairly spot on. Pip Pip, Cheerio!
He titles the article:
THE FIGHT IS ON! NEWT GINGRICH VICTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA MEANS NO MORE MR. INEVITABLE FOR MITT ROMNEY
What a turnaround! A week ago, it looked like Mitt Romney was going to head into the Florida primary with three victories under his belt. Then it turned out that Rick Santorum won Iowa after all and South Carolina voters backed Newt Gingrich, delivering a message to Romney and the media: ‘Not so fast!’
So, for the first time in Republican history there’s been a three-way split decision between Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Next up, in 10 days’ time, is Florida, where Romney holds a solid double-digit lead and has the money and organisation that should ensure he wins a large state with nine separate television markets.
Of course, Romney’s emphatic 16-point win in New Hampshire and consequent double-digit poll lead here in South Carolina should have delivered him victory tonight so no one in Romneyworld will be taking anything for granted in the Sunshine State.
What did it for Gingrich here? Two very strong debate performances were key. His best moment was his exchange with Juan Williams of Fox in Monday’s Myrtle Beach debate in which he gave full-throated voice to the conservative philosophy of self-help and free enterprise as well as casting aside political correctness and racial tiptoeing.
Then, the much-ballyhooed ABC News interview with his second wife Marianne backfired spectacularly. CNN gave Gingrich a gift by asking him about the ‘open marriage’ allegation right at the start of Thursday’s debate in Charleston. Savaging the ‘liberal media’ is almost invariably a winner in Republican primaries and Gingrich took full advantage.
More generally, however, South Carolina voters decided they did not want a coronation or to send an unvetted nominee into battle against President Barack Obama, with a billion dollars in campaign funds behind him, in November.
He remains the favourite for the GOP nomination but it is now clear that Romney is no shoo-in. And nor should he be. Obama’s long and bitter primary contest with Hillary Clinton in 2008 ultimately meant that he was battle-tested for the general election. Whoever emerges as the Republican nominee in 2012 needs to be the same.
Romney, uncharacteristically, was vague and halting in the two debates this week and need to turn in a strong performance in Tampa on Monday. In his ‘concession’ speech (I never heard him concede to or congratulate Gingrich) he was fiercely combative, indicating that he will go for Gingrich’s throat in Florida.
Previewing a key line of attack, Romney compared Gingrich to Obama: ‘Our party can’t be led to victory by someone who also has never run a business and never run a state.’
Gingrich still has a mountain to climb. By every measure, he is significantly behind in Florida and one lesson of this race so far is that momentum from one victory matters very little. But tonight has burst the bubble of inevitability in which Romney had been enveloped.
Romney’s opponents have long suspected he has a glass jaw. Now we will see whether he can take a punch, get up off the floor and keep fighting.
George W. Bush recovered from a drubbing in
New Hampshire in 2000 at the hands of John McCain. Barack Obama overcame a stunning defeat at the hands of Clinton in the same state in 2008. Romney now has the chance to prove he is made of similar stuff.
Gingrich, the early December front runner, has already sunk once in the polls under sustained negative attack from Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Perry. He’ll need to brace himself for a Romney onslaught in Florida with every detail of his ethics violations, marital infidelities, House leadership stumbles and activities on behalf of Freddie Mac laid bare for all to see.
The other day a guy needed to go to the emergency room.
Not wanting to sit there for 4 hours, he put on his MAGIC GREEN HAT. When he went into the E.R., He noticed that 3/4 of the people got up and left.
He guessed they decided that they weren’t that sick after all.
Cut at least 3 hours off his waiting time.
It also works at DMV. It saved him 5 hours.
At the Laundromat, three minutes after entering, he had his choice of any machine, most still running.
But… don’t try it at McDonald’s. The whole crew will get up and leave and you’ll never got your order!
Attribution: Greg, Bev
Methodology: Delegate numbers for each state are after the application of penalties and include unpledged delegates. In some states where actual delegates are assigned by multi-step procedures, the AP uses results from local caucuses to calculate the number of national delegates each candidate will win. The AP interviews unpledged delegates to determine their preferences and includes them in the total.
Attribution: AP, Wallstreet Journal
With the recent shakeup in the republican primary, Mitt Romney can no longer be considered the prohibitve favorite. I still think he is favored, but it’s getting very interesting.
With that said, do we really want or need another global warming advocate in the White House? Is Mitt a greenie or a flip flopper? You decide.
I guess I wouldn’t classify Mitt Romney’s positions on Global Warming, Flip Flops. I would say it’s more of a slow climb over a fence, climbing from the left to the right side of the fence.
As recently as his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. … I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”
In June of 2011 he said, “I think the earth is getting warmer. … I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”
During a campaign stop back in October 2011 Mitt Romney stated, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,”
However, EPA Abuse reports:
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has had numerous positions on climate change, carbon dioxide and global warming over the years.
His most recent views seem conservative, but as governor of Massachusetts, his views were in line with Al Gore’s views.
Human Events columnist Deroy Murdock recently outlined some of these “hot and cold” positions on global warming from the man who wishes to be President of the United States.
In 2004, Romney launched the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, “a coordinated statewide response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate,” as his office described it.
Romney’s December 7, 2005 press release announced, “Strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.”
“These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” Romney said. This red tape, the communiqué noted, is designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from power plant smokestacks.” Furthermore, the experts whom Romney consulted “include John Holdren [sic]…at Harvard University.”
“Romney (or his staff) was misled by John ‘Holdren’ [sic], a rabid environmentalist and collaborator of the notorious Paul Ehrlich.
John Holdren is now Obama’s science adviser,” says Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a University of Virginia professor emeritus of physics and environmental science and the U.S. Weather Satellite Service’s founding director. “They consider CO2 a pollutant and mention it along with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury — all real pollutants, injurious to human health. Clearly, they had no clue about the science.”
“No one would choose such a green course, enlist such advisors, and then suddenly reverse himself,” the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., tells me. “As president, Romney will revert to his more familiar green self.”
“There is no such thing as global warming,” he told a smiling Glenn Beck on Fox News in June 2011. That same month, he told Rush Limbaugh that climate change is a liberal conspiracy: “It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Santorum accused the EPA of acting on a philosophy of “We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas.”
“Drill everywhere” is his philosophy when it comes to oil, he told Beck.
Santorum doesn’t see what the big fuss is about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline traversing the Ogallala Aquifer. “Has anybody looked at the number of pipelines that go through that aquifer now? I mean, you can’t even see the aquifer if you look at a schematic of how many pipelines are there,” he told Iowans at a Dec. 31 rally. Opposition to the pipeline is just “pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” he continued. “… It has to do with an ideology, a religion of its own that’s being pushed on the American public.”
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Attribution: UK Guardian, CBS News
What do Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie & Donald Trump have in common. If you said, none of them are conservative, you’d be right. What else?
If you said they’re popular with conservatives, you’d also be correct.
There is one other thing they have in common that is very attractive to conservatives. If you guessed, all three of them are firebrands, you’d be right again. Wow, you’re good.
By firebrands, I mean political brawlers that stand up to the press & to the libs. They don’t take the usual crap mushy milk toast republicans have been taking like mutes for decades. We as proud conservatives have been putting up with leftist crap for most of our adult lives, all the time wondering why our elected representatives can’t grow a spine & tell the media & other leftists as it is.
When a public figure finally does confront the onslaught, we all stand up and cheer, proclaiming, it’s about time someone said what I am thinking. You go, so & so, stick it to um. Tell me I’m wrong. We’ve all done it. Then the very next thought is, how come my guy can’t do that? Why can’t my guy be the political pugilist I’ve been longing for?
The problem that faces me is that none of these firebrands, as I already stated, are conservative.
Chris Christie is a northeast moderate-to-liberal republican. He is more fiscally conservative than socially, but he is no true conservative. Folks love him though; like very conservative Ann Coulter. Her & Christie are kindred spirits in that I think they both enjoy slamming lefties. She has no problem looking beyond the fact he is a moderate, al la Romney. I assume she thinks it’s more important to fight back than where one actually stands on any given issue.
In Donald Trump, the public sees the same thing; someone who will stand up & call out Barack, the chosen one, without fear of retribution. The Donald isn’t afraid of it. His only fear is of losing the spotlight. I believe Trump is a chameleon. He is whatever he perceives the public needs him to be.
Anyone who has read my blog recently, knows how I feel about Newt. I fully understand what is attractive about him. So does he. Believe me when I say he will continue down this aggressive path. Why not? It’s working for him. He is presenting himself as the “Defender of the Faith”, fighting on our behalf.
Newt is the only one who has figured out that this is a popularity contest. He has come to the correct conclusion that our side has been yearning for someone to pick a fight with the pompous left & make them look like the in the tank shills that they are.
My fear going forward is that ideas & ideals will get lost as more and more seemingly intelligent conservatives join the fight just for the fights sake.