Feedburner
Hillary Wants To Seize Oil Company Profits
Looks like Senator Hillary Clinton is making the rounds again, this time want to seize profits from "Big Oil" in order to pay for some of her favorite projects. From Las Vegas Review Journal:
Today, Venezuela has a communist dictator. When Hugo Chavez doesn't like the way things are going with his country's oil, telecommunications and power industries -- or if he merely craves their wealth -- he simply seizes them, calling it "nationalization."Is that the way many in the American press and public would like to see things done here, despite the wreck that such policies made of Eastern Europe?
… Has Sen. Clinton really changed her tune? Exxon Mobil last week announced that it earned $39.5 billion in 2006, for a profit of about 10 percent -- the most profitable year any company has ever had.
The bulk of that money goes to stockholders who invested in the firm, either directly or through a company 401(k) plan. That profitability offers assurance that the company will keep developing new oil fields and refineries -- where politicians allow them -- to keep us supplied with gasoline and heating oil at historically low rates (once adjusted for inflation.)
But speaking last Friday at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Washington, Sen. Clinton said: "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."
According to Investor's Business Daily, she made the remarks "with wide, glowing eyes that suggested the mere thought of taking money that didn't belong to her gave her a thrill."
But, "Threatening to hijack private property in the energy industry is a serious matter," the business daily points out, in a mild understatement. "If (Sen.) Clinton were able to seize profits, shareholders would suffer harm and Americans who use energy -- that's all of us, except maybe Ted Kaczynski in his Unabomber days -- would be saddled with higher prices and lower supplies."
Will set aside Hillary's greed for the sake of big government aside for the moment, although the gleam in her eye when talking about seizing these profits makes for interesting imagery.
To Clinton, and others like her on the Liberal-Left, a 10% profit, much of which is paid out to shareholders (which means most Americans) is an outrage. Yet a 10% profit is not all that unreasonable when you get down to it, and it is a company's duty to return profits to their investors. This is the American way.
Oil is what moves Americans and America, not to mention the rest of the world. It fuels our trucks that move products from one place to another, our cars (although there are some alternatives, like all electric vehicles, however, they have a very limited range), and our aircraft, which allows rapid transit from one region to another, including movement overseas.
Sure, I'd like to see America less dependent on foreign oil imports, however, so called "green" alternatives, such as wind and solar, can't get the job done. And they can't run our transportation. Ethanol, which is also a darling of the Liberal-Left is very inefficient, and expensive. The only reason it is priced lower at the pump is due to all the subsidies that Americans are taxed in order to provide. Even at its lower price at the pump, its lower fuel efficiency makes it moderately more expensive to move your car than regular gasoline.
There are answers to the energy question: nuclear energy technology has vastly improved over the last several decades; there are also untapped oil reserves within our borders, such as ANWR, as well as within reach on the outer continental shelf.
Instead of allowing oil companies to explore these fields, or leveraging nuclear technology, Hillary and the Liberal-Left continue to hogtie America, forcing it to be dependent on foreign imports. Or pushing Americans to use less energy, thus reducing our standard of living and having a negative influence on our economy.
Tags: