Hypocrites and the Big Oil Holiday Ham

The political world is keeping an eye on oil profits like an enormously juicy glazed Christmas ham. The government versus the free market debate rages on as everyone in the public eye fights over who is going to decide future energy choices and costs.

-

The American public has seen a vacuous energy banter go on for years under the pretense that everyone is looking for the next big energy deal. In the same way that gamers play the slots in Vegas, the big dogs keep pumping the slot machines in hopes of having a great idea while enjoying pulling on the one-armed bandit. The workaholic Thomas Edison wouldn’t agree with such things. We would still be using oil lamps if government was directly involved in the process of ingenuity and hard work in glory days.

Government hungers for a windfall profits tax. What Big Gov will use that glorious tax for depends on who you talk to. Ronald Reagan’s experiment with windfall profit taxes in the 1980s proved to be economically devastating. The windfall profits tax failed to raise even a fraction of the revenue that was forecast, crippled the production of the domestic oil industry and brought in the Arabs and speculation with a vengeance.

The common excuse is that Big Gov is going to give Americans a break from energy prices and magically jumpstart research into renewable energy, an event that is always just outside the grasp of the nation and technology, much like the gold at the bottom of the rainbow. Reality doesn’t matter. All the big talk makes for good election conversation, which makes politicians feel good.

One thing that Big Oil has been doing recently with enormous profits is buying back shares from the public market to garner more control and profits from their publicly-traded stock. Spending on existing oil fields is up 47% from a few years back and exploration has surged 80%. Never mind that oil exploration is the smallest effort made in the scheme of Big Oil. Then again, Big Gov has tied the hands of Big Oil on most federal lands and onshore drilling. Big Oil could buy “half of Nevada” with some profits and embark on a drilling program if it could work through the proliferation of federal laws to make it happen.

Big Gov is heavy on the taxes. American motorists pay an average of 47 cents per gallon in state and federal gasoline taxes. A motorist that uses diesel fuel pays more than 53 cents per gallon on average. In the meantime Big Gov collects billions from energy companies in corporate income taxes, off-shore royalties, severance taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes and strategic mineral management.

The really entertaining part of the current scheme is that Big Government is skimming 15% from all oil produced on federal lands, which it expects to nearly double by next year with the idea of filling the Strategic Oil Reserve and participating as a dealer in the market for profit.

The recent scandal within the Interior Department, which manages the royalty-in-kind program, has not been encouraging. Oil companies leasing federal land to drill for oil are required to pay the government royalties based on a percentage of their sales. Under the royalty-in-kind program, oil companies pay in the form of oil and gas instead of cash. The government says this scheme is simpler and more efficient because it reduces accounting and transaction efforts. This is code for government-endorsed fraud without accountability.

The government is free to do as it pleases with the oil for its’ own benefit and the benefit of government administrators. The government has tried to make the case that oil prices have increased more than the value of the oil and gas royalty revenues being received, meaning that the oil companies are managing to withhold a growing amount of their profits from Big Gov. Completely ignored is the fact that oil removed continuously from the Strategic Reserve and the Mineral Management Service is put on the open market for the profit of Big Government. The asset value of the Strategic Reserve has no doubt increased as well because of rampant speculation in the market, which big government supports as a perceived money-making tool.

The evidence is that Big Oil is already providing a windfall of tax revenue. Various proposals aimed at the oil industry have nothing to do with fairness or righting a wrong. Big Gov wants more revenue and is weighing public opinion to get it. Big Government loves to target success in a never-ending search for funding, whether real or imagined.

TNTalk! previously cited that gasoline prices are much lower than they should be when compared with the cost of a spot market barrel of oil. Big Oil is making money in distributing other oil products, which enables the United States to enjoy lower gas prices than much of the world except for other countries than are noted as “oil-producing nations”. Federal policies, many dating from the 1970s, continue to raise U.S. gas prices.

Some sources cite that energy-producing countries of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela enjoy comparatively low prices of gasoline compared to the remainder of the world. While American imports far more oil than it produces, Big Government has made a conscious choice over the years to buy into the speculative market for the profit of the government, government officials, corporations and speculators. Big Gov heavily suppresses, regulates and taxes the country’s ability to produce oil for its own use in an effort to make a long-term cash cow from the industry while suppressing new technology and creativity under the guise of environmental responsibility.

E. Manning

“Within This America”

-

Leon Walker is a TNTalk! contributing writer. You can look for his columns at least every Saturday “write here on TNTalk!” To find out more about Leon, check out our writers page.

-

We are in the midst of observing something incred- ibly thrilling and of mammoth historic significance in this country. I predict that future generations will someday reflect on the Presidential Campaign of Senator Barack Obama, as a secondary story and in truth, that is how it should be.

Several months ago I watched the movie “The Queen” starring Helen Mirren. In my efforts to mentally locate a basis for what I wanted to express in this writing, that film seems great example. In short, from my perspective it is in large part, a film about progress and change. But perhaps more importantly, it is about leadership failing to take the measure of, and to respond to the will of the people. It is a film about blinding myopia and rigid tradition which were the basis for crippled leadership. This column is also about the potential for people, citizens with deep seeded beliefs and dreams having an impact and creating real possibilities.

In spite of my optimism, clearly we cannot predict what further level of success Senator Obama will enjoy through the remainder of his campaign. What I have come to know is that is possible, “a very real possibility” that he may become the next President of the United States. That realization alone, speaks volumes about this country, its citizens and the reality of the American Dream.

As a child I would sometimes rush through the wonderful birthday meal my mother prepared, only focusing on and anticipating the birthday cake that awaited me. I completely failed to appreciate that two separate events were contained in that year’s celebration. As we continue to go about our work on behalf of our candidate, we should be thoroughly enjoying the “fact” that through this campaign to date, we have already orchestrated what is quite possibly the most significant event in this nation’s recent political history. I hope that Americans never lose sight of or fail to fully appreciate the significance. Without question, securing the Democratic Party nomination and the White House are further critical goals to remain intently focused on. For many Americans, such a reality is only just becoming fathomable.

Before I continue and in an effort to ensure my past ideological failings are fully exposed, let me share some insight into myself. I am an African American, fifty four years old and a native of Cleveland, Ohio. I am college educated, a retired U. S. Naval Officer and former business professional. Politically, I am significantly right of Teddy Kennedy and perhaps even Senator Obama. So in truth, had you asked me one year ago if this level of success was remotely possible for this candidate, I would have responded that such a thing was both a pipe dream, as well as a dangerous proposition.

I no longer believe either of the foregoing, and also realize that I was pointedly wrong. I was wrong in my manner of thinking and wrong about America. I had mentally fallen victim to visions of the same depressing political paralysis that I had long despised.

Media pundits and long-time politicians repeatedly tell us that speeches, passion, dreams and movements are not the stuff that political leadership is made of. In my view, one has only to recall even from youthful historic studies that visions of those things are the basis for garnering support for forming and defending the fledgling United States of America. Not only have the long time political insiders seemingly forgotten this, but they also shamelessly and publicly state their disbelief in the importance and substance of it. I can only imagine that this is due in large part to deeply ingrained institutionalized concepts and political ideology that defy their clear vision of the very America that they have committed themselves to report on or the Americans they profess to represent.

Oh yes, career politicians want us to vote for them. They don’t think we really understand and appreciate their methods. Selling the hollow notion of experience, while locked in an egotistical coma, they fail to respond to our citizens living in most every variety of despair. The reality is, they don’t fully understand and appreciate that the citizens have lost faith in their ability to adequately examine the needs of the people, or their willingness to even fully grasp and carry out such basic concepts as the “will of the people”.

I am genuinely perplexed as to how on a grand scale that American politicians unknowingly wander lost into this unknown place of politics. This is a place as in the aforementioned movie, where “they simply don’t understand that they don’t understand”.

In the history of this generation there is a new story, not only that of traditional vitriolic words, callous tactics and seedy improprieties which litter the landscape of our political leadership. There is now the far more compelling and intriguing story of the “Children of Light”. These are many Americans who have loosed themselves from the grips of fear, myopia, silence and indifference. These citizens have become galvanized by a purposeful dream and belief in an “America within” with the power to change America throughout.

Many have risen to the challenge of working together for something wonderful in a unified quest for a new brand of leadership. I am heartened and energized by what I have seen and learned from my country. In spite of our many troubles and differences, many still believe there is within our grasp a magnificent reality of untainted leadership, equity and freedom to choose that should be thoroughly considered and fully appreciated. There is a visible movement of the many - “the we” - who are taking an active stance politically and simply refusing to eat “the devil’s hors d’ouvres”. The diverse and delicately blended “we” are galvanized in casting our votes and having a voice in making our choice for the next President of the United States. “We” are the ones that are joined in a common effort to overturn this nation’s inefficient and rustic political machine.

Certainly, there are many challenges and disagreements to face and battles to fight. But now, no matter how daunting the task, how dismal the outlook or how deeply painful the scars, I am convinced without question that “within this America” of today “there is something greater”.

L. A. Walker, © Leon A. Walker

Golden Land of Humanitarianism

Myanmar is advertised as a tourist paradise, a golden land of sights, people and ancient traditions. For the last fifteen years, the country has suffered with the curious effects of a seemingly suspicious and paranoid government.

America has faced hurricanes before and know the power that hurricanes hold. The people of Burma have been dealt a nasty blow with a cyclone with few resources to deal with the event. The construction of the local buildings was not up to the task of dealing with the onslaught and huge numbers of people have lost their lives. The nation faces an acute crisis that requires immediate attention. Doubtless, you have heard that millions face utter poverty and health crisis in the wake of the devastation.

In standard fashion and to their credit, the United Nations ramped up their humanitarian juggernaut to supply the needs of the hurting victims of the cyclone. The rulers of the country have refused to allow angels of mercy into the country to meet the immediate need. Instead, they took control of the cargo and stated in a belated manner that Myanmar would distribute the aid from the United Nations themselves.

The United Nations declared that all “the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated.” In reaction, the United Nations has announced that all further shipments are suspended until the matter is resolved.

In the words of the media, the U.N. “blasted” the military government, saying the government’s refusal to allow foreign aid workers to help victims was “unprecedented” in the history of humanitarian work. While what the U.N. says is true today, perhaps the United Nations has become a little proud in assuming that they can march in anywhere they please without a question because they intend to meet an overwhelming need.

The Myanmar military junta is documented as being suspicious and fearful of outsiders because they fear the risk of outside insurgency. They haven’t refused the material assistance, only the outside assistance that goes with it as of today. The problem seems to be that Myanmar is concerned that visas for the workers have not been fully processed or appropriately made. Whether this fact is true remains to be seen. If it is true, a little “hand-holding” may be in order.

You do have to ask what is wrong with a country that wants to exercise its’ own sovereignty and fully know who is in the country. On the other hand, if this country were a person that is suspicious, even paranoid of others, how would you help them?

How do you deal with a person that is a paranoid and perhaps, even schizophrenic? You try to gain their trust if you can, even though the process may seem to be an uphill battle. The extreme option is the straight-jacket. Which approach is more reasonable?

In this case, the U.N. is taking on the role of the doctor that wants to supply free aid. In America, at least, you can’t normally force the patient against his or her will, even if the aid is free. The idea is to work out a compromise so that the patient can be helped.

In the case of Myanmar, you have hundreds of thousands, if not millions that may need assistance. A true humanitarian would do everything possible to help, include negotiating U.N. agents to travel with the aid to be certain that it is distributed. The help is for people, not the military leaders. What is more, the Myanmar politicos can still be seen as supplying the aid while building faith in the government. After all, this seems to be the concern of the government. Political nations do not always put the immediate needs of their people first and often put political concerns first. This is not an untenable situation unless everyone playing the political game insists on having their way.

The U.N. is very familiar with using agents and small teams to help with highly inflammatory political situations. Whether right or wrong, being the good guy, even the humanitarian often requires extra diligence and commitment to work for humanitarian needs and human rights. The United Nations has to ask itself what is most important in helping the people of Burma with a paranoid military government. The real motives of the U.N. are on display to the world.

The Fight over Torture

Missouri Senator Kit Bond is tired of human rights abuses. For the second year in a row, Bond has sponsored legislation that would limit the CIA to using only 19 techniques approved by the military in the Army Field Manual.

The 2008 version of his bill was vetoed by President Bush, so Senator Bond is seeking to have his proposal attached to other legislation to get the proposal through Congress.

Bond wants to write into law what the officials cannot do: force detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner; have hoods or sacks placed over their heads or duct tape over their eyes; be beaten, shocked or burned; threatened with military dogs; exposed to extreme heat or cold; subjected to mock executions; deprived of food, water or medical care, or be waterboarded.

CIA Director Michael Hayden says that he prohibited waterboarding by the CIA in 2006, but it still could be used if authorized by the president and the attorney general. Hayden also complained that the military list in the manual does not include all interrogation techniques that are allowed by the Geneva Conventions.

The new law that Bond is pushing prohibits private contractors from involvement in interrogations as requires Red Cross access to all prisoners. The law would also require the active government administration all legal decisions made on prisoners and detainees.

The bill is designed to increase oversight of government and so-called “intelligence activities”. The House and Senate intelligence committees would require briefing on all programs and topics of briefings provided to committee leaders.

The 2009 House legislation also offers to add money for electronic intelligence and human spy projects including a national computer security monitoring program. The House bill also prohibits other earmarks from being added to the legislative bill.

The appearance is that the lawmakers want to “bribe” military and CIA officials into going their way in exchange for additional government subsidies.

The Food Crisis and Global Politics

While the United States has been frolicking with election antics and high gas prices, much of the third-world is battling the high price of food and inflationary economic pressures that are putting pressure on governmental stability in countries around the world.

The United Nations has wisely planned to establish a task force to tackle the global food crisis in order to avoid “social unrest on an unprecedented scale.” The United Nations first priority has been to establish funding the need since the funds are not available. George Bush has been seeking to secure funding for $775 million through Congress for the need in addition to $225 million in U.S. aid that has been provided recently. Regardless of finances, the U.S. government remains committed to assisting the U.N. as the need is immediate and time is of the essence.

Food crisis events have been sparking around the world as people become upset over the lack of food or the ability to buy what is needed to survive. Skyrocketing costs for food staples, flared by rising fuel prices and increased use of food for biofuels along with increased demand from India and China, bad weather and a recent earthquake, has already sparked protests, in some cases with violence in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. Market pricing and speculation are also being blamed.

Some scientific authorities have claimed that stopping the use of food-based biofuels would cut corn prices by 20 percent. Disagreement in actual figures ranges from 15 to 30 percent, depending on the source of information. President Bush is calling for the opposite approach, declaring that the United States should increase ethanol use for national security and the stabilization of gas prices. “The truth of the matter is, it’s in our national interest that our farmers grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us,” Bush declared.

The International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington claims that projects should be operated using non-grain products like switchgrass to create biofuels. How much switchgrass could be used to create biofuels has not been detailed in a realistic manner.

While making certain that farmers are properly educated and outfitted to grow the food that they are farming is of great importance, global hunger tsunamis threaten the fabric of society of some areas. Angry street protesters call for immediate action. Long-term solutions are likely to be slow, costly and complicated based on the testimony of experts. This testimony sounds like excuse-mongering, since creating a reasonable plan of approach as a goal is the first step to resolve or lessen any problem. Solutions should involve planting more crops in suffering nations and educating people on feeding themselves.

The marketing clamor for biofuels that we’ve heard in the last few years has not proved to be the panacea that some environmentalists and leaders had hoped for. Genetically-modified crops could be part of the answer, but better irrigation and farming practices are more likely to yield better and faster results. Lack of investment in self-supporting agriculture is probably the largest problem that the world faces. Continuing to feed many millions with a food supply that is under increasing pressure will bear only short-term temporary results. Ultimately, investment in effective agriculture, proper training and improved transportation for market access is needed. Remarkably, this need has not been addressed in the past in a significant way. Poverty and agricultural capabilities seem to be clearly linked, but few have seen the connection until recently.

More interesting, the global marketing plan now announces that production of biofuel leads to the destruction of forests and takes up land available to grow crops for food. It would seem that the focus continually changes, almost as if the world community is chasing a rainbow.

The common line goes something like this: “Citizens in the West, China and India must realize that the meat on their plate and biofuels in their expensive cars carry a cost for those in the developing world.” This attitude is the reverse of constructive thinking. Instead of creating emphasis on lowering global livings standards, the world would be much better off with the mindset of lifting up self-sustaining global living standards while considering and working with environmental concerns. This is far preferable and much more reasonable than lowering the world to a like-standard of poverty. The continual drum-beating of lowering living standards globally simply expands the realm between the “haves” and “have-nots” while fostering dependence on more aid. The results show that the emergency approach without a master plan is more likely a political tool rather than a philosophy of concern and generosity. What do you think?

E. Manning

Wall Street Fraud and Politics

“Why don’t we hold these Wall Street money brokers responsible for their role in this recession?” demanded Hillary Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner. Even Senator Clinton can’t resist the rhetoric potential posed by fraudulent money handlers as she seeks to curry favor with working class voters. Much of America wants banker-types to pay and pay big.

Yesterday, Clinton told a crowd in Indiana that OPEC “can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world” to set the price of oil. She reiterated her intention to use antitrust law to sue OPEC for price-fixing. I suppose that she would have U.S. citizens believe that she would govern the world. Unfortunately for the ilk of Clinton, U.S. law resides only within the borders of the nation. Experienced business people

Political Double-Speak and Straw Dogs

At this late date with what is expected to be a pivotal event in the Democratic primary, one of the candidates is once again seeking shallow resonance with what the mainstream media calls “white working class voters”. Anyone that has two licks of sense should know better than to listen.

The latest debate is over what may be the most lame, most politically-motivated ploy of the primary so far. The gas tax fight is a no brainer and paints the Washington scene with politics as usual. The gas tax holiday straw dog is immeasurably flawed and gimmicky to be realistically considered as a real solution for a nation in real economic pain. The politicians that openly support the measure should be flagged and voted out of office for “politics as usual”. To make matters worse, one of our candidates even noted that big oil was going to pay for the gas tax in the taxpayer’s stead.

Safe Electric Car Heralds the Future

The car isn’t clunky. The car meets American safety standards. The car looks like a car is expected to look and performs well. In fact, the Tesla Roadster is too fast.

When you put the pedal to the metal, the lithium ion battery-powered engine emits a powerful hum, like a much quieter version of a jet taking off with a turbine sound. Because the Tesla Roadster has an electric motor, it’s has 100 percent torque all the time. When you accelerate you feel like you are taking off in an airplane.

The price tag is an expensive $109,000 with a fully-loaded price of $124,000. It’s a decent start with mainstreaming an electric vehicle

advertisement

advertisement