From the WSJ [subscribers only]:
Just when you think Congress can’t possibly be more destructive, the Members surprise you again. Their latest doozy is a backdoor windfall profits tax on oil companies that was stuffed into the Senate budget reconciliation before Thanksgiving.
[…] A windfall profits tax is the ultimate act of economic masochism because it taxes only domestic production, while imports and foreign oil subsidiaries bear almost none of the cost. But wait, this time it’s worse. […] The Senate bill would require the companies to revalue their inventories by $18.75 a barrel—an arbitrary number if there ever was one. In effect, this means that Congress is creating the illusion of higher oil profits, and thus raising the tax liability of oil companies by an estimated $5 billion next year. This would be on top of the 35% tax rate they already pay on their actual profits.
[…] Senators want to create phony corporate profits, so they can grab them to spend. […] What’s even more reprehensible about this revenue grab is its retroactive nature. In a sense this is less a tax than it is an ex post facto confiscation of private property.
[My emphasis]
The outrage over oil profits—expressed in a steady stream of showy outrage by a handful of Congressmen and populist blowhards like Bill O’Reilly—was always just a ploy for these opportunists to help themselves to a share of the profits from oil companies who “benefit” from a spike prices, be that spike a product of hurricane fears or heavy international demand.
In the case of O’Reilly, his conspiracy-mongering manifested itself in big ratings and convenient broadcast fodder, with “big oil” playing the boogeyman du jour, and O’Reilly playing the populist hero looking out for “the folks” against an orchestrated campaign of “gouging” conducted by a cartel of greedy businessness unconcerned with the suffering and financial hardship the high cost of gasoline was having on the little guy.
In the case of Congress, their hearings on oil profits had the same self-righteous populist stink to it—and now we know why: so they can try dipping their beaks into the profit pool and rationalizing away their desire for a government-mandated kickback scheme. The result? Higher oil prices for consumers.
Townhall’s Dan Mitchell puts this all into perspective:
Imagine if politicians ordered you to artificially inflate your income by 20 percent so that you had to pay more tax? You would be outraged, and your ire would be completely justified. But if the politicians in the Senate get away with an Enron-style tax increase on oil companies, who knows which group they will target next?
The continued growth of the economy in spite of efforts like this speaks to its overall robust health, I should think. That a Republican Senate is responsible for these anti-business tax gouges, however, is an embarrassment.
But hey—somebody’s gotta pay for all this compassionate conservatism, right…?
O Senator Where Art Thou
“You don’t tell your pappy how to court the electorate. We ain’t one-at-a-timin’ here. We’re mass confiscatin’!”
WHAT? You are a disagreeing with Karl Rove’s Vast Right Wing Message Machine?
Hypocrisy!!!!!
WHAT? You are a disagreeing with Karl Rove’s Vast Right Wing Message Machine?
Hypocrisy!!!!!
Bill O’Reilly is intolerable. Fox News is, in some respects, a nice counter-balance to the leftist infatuations of CNN and the Big Three. But as Jeff notes of O’Reilly, the Fox crew tilts populist, which is nearly as repugnant to me as Marxist blathering. Indeed, during their Schiavo hysteria they drove me briefly back to CNN—the horror!
I do not care about this manufactured “War on Christmas.” What, so John Gibson can sell books? While I do not doubt that PC silliness is behind a lot of the push to speak of “holiday trees” and the like, this “issue” simply does not merit the constant drum-beat Fox is engaging in. Christ, I almost long to hear more about Natalee.
Brit Hume is cool, tho.
It’s a free-market economy until somebody does a little too well. Then it’s income re-distribution time. And in the end we all know who pays and who benefits from these artificial market distortions.
There’s nothing so bad that a little legislation can’t make worse.
If they instead wanted to tax Bill o’Reilly’s vast knowledge of economics in general and the world oil market specifically, I’d be all for it.
Of course, that would bring in about $1.32. After the $18.75 revaluation.
P.S.: Gas at my nearby Safeway store is now below $2 a gallon. So that whole conspiracy is now vacationing in Anguilla with a barely legal teen.
The good news is that President Bush has threatened to veto this if it still has that component of the bill. Of course, that would be the first time he used the veto, so take it for what it’s worth.
TV (Harry)
tw: working – The Repub party – working to bring you a more “fair” America. Egads. It hurt to type that.
rjv:
Charles Durning. Great character in that movie.
Now excuse me while I pommade. Thanks, in advance.
tw: foot
the bill – you and me, that’s who.
Makes you wonder how many of our politicians would pass Econ 101.
And on O’Reilly, I hate when someone calls him a conservative. He’s not a conservative, he’s a douchebag!
When was the point in time were the supposedly business-friendly Republicans in the Senate replaced by a bunch of idiotic jerk-offs?
I can’t remember the last time I watched more than a few seconds of Fox News Channel, other than maybe Brit Hume’s show at 6:00 p.m. While Fox News is better television than its competitors, it’s, well, I mean, it’s television!
I still trust them better than, say, CNN—I just can’t watch them anymore. I think they’re all trying too hard to be O’Reilly.
Except for Hume, and Tony Snow, and I guess Chris Wallace…
When was the point in time there ever supposedly were business-friendly Republicans in the Senate?
Damn, the line about unfair profits is so old! I mean, politicians have been crowing about the eeevil “speculators” who drive up prices for the “regular folks” for centuries! If you looked, I bet you could find an example from the Roman freaking Empire.
It’s all a complete sham. I used to think these campaigns were the product of the politicians’ economic stupidity, but now I realize it’s the product of simple greed—greedy politicians who want to seize anything and everything that’s vulnerable.
The bullshit economics they peddle is just smoke and mirrors, a propaganda campaign to sell to the public to facilitate their theft. In this case, the oil companies are just a handy target, because they are easy to demonize. Their product is unpopular. Buying it sucks. It’s no fun. It’s as fun as buying tires or brake pads or dish soap.
I imagine that the NFL has an even healthier profit margin than the oil companies. But the political class can’t target the NFL for special tax treatment (i.e., thievery) because every sports fan in the country would openly revolt.
“The founding fathers, in their wisdom, devised a method by which our republic can take one hundred of its most prominent numbskulls and keep them out of the private sector where they might do actual harm.”—P. J. O’Rourke
However, somebody needs to alert P. J. that they are starting to do real harm.
TW: floor. What I’m going to have a hard time getting off of if the prices go back up again.
Phinn,
Phoenecians as well, but to be fair, it was in the time of Romans.
This is just another example of Republicans pandering or caving in to the Left. Another shrill, vocal minotity wants to cut into the “Evil Oil Barons” who made a whopping 8% profit on sales. Those that profit most from the sale of oil is the State and Federal Government – a combined 50 cent a gallon tax here.
If Bush does not veto this bill I am done with him. GWOT or not.
Hmmm.
How wierd is it that in America success if punished.
Frankly I don’t mind the energy companies making fat profits. They generally have to spend that money on enormously expensive projects and the more money they have, the more projects they’ll fund.
Does anyone know where I can get a break out of all of the gas taxes for each state? Whenever I try to search google, I can’t get it the query right without getting millions of other pages mentioned gas and taxes.
Thanks in advance.
no, no, i believe the correct term is “dreamy”
Plus he has a really cool name. Hume, Brit Hume.
(blatant rip-off from Wayne’s World skit over)
A few days ago while driving home from work I had talk radio on, and it was Bill’s show. The moron informed us that the “War on Christmas” was all a part of a “Progressive Secular” agenda to bring about legalized drugs and gay marriage.
Judge Napolitano—who frequently subs for Bill—is a devout Catholic who advocates sensible drug policy, and has endorsed some form of decriminalization. So have a lot of the folks over at National Review criticized the so-called war on drugs. They must all secretly hate the birthday of the Baby Jesus.
anomdebus:
I think that what you seek is here. The most current data appear to be as-of 2003.
anomdebus,
Here’s the best I’ve found. from Jan 05.
Mitchell’s example is a good one, but it’s a shame that he doesn’t point out that his example is, in effect, what they’d be doing. Anyone who’s taken an accounting course knows that taxes are a business expense. You and I pay their corporate taxes as part of the price of the product.
The federal and state governments already make way more money from gas sales than the oil companies do. Now they want more and they’re too chickeshit to openly raise gas taxes at the pump so they’ve made up a backdoor way to do it. They’ve got some set of balls calling the oil execs gougers.
The big kick in the nuts revelation that forever turned me from my socialistic tendencies was the revelation that the true greed ruining this country was people thinking they had a right to things they haven’t earned. And the politicians are all too willing to buy their votes with other peoples money, of course.
The saddest thing to me is how many of my friends can’t understand how someone who doesn’t make alot of money, like me, can think it is wrong for the government to behave this way. The idea of taking a political or moral stance that doesn’t benefit me personally completely mystifies them.
Someone-unfortunatley I can’t remember who-linked to a Steve Chapman article
This sent me to google to find the state and federal taxes on fuel. While not as current as the others (2002)mentioned it does break the taxes down. Here is the chart I found. Washington, where I live, has .23 cents state taxes and a combined state and federal tax of 41.3 cents in taxes. Washington raised state taxes by 5 cents in 2003 and this year again raised taxes so these are not included.
Oscar & Sean,
Thanks for the links! I will bookmark them.