CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Bush loves Exxon more than you
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush loves Exxon more than you

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
House OKs Penalty for Gas Price Gouging


Wednesday May 23, 2007 7:16 PM

By H. JOSEF HEBERT

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House, eager to do something about record high gasoline prices in advance of the Memorial Day weekend, voted narrowly Wednesday to approve stiff penalties for those found guilty of gasoline price gouging.

The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to go after oil companies, traders or retail operators if they take ``unfair advantage'' or charge ``unconscionably excessive'' prices for gasoline and other fuels.

The White House called the measure a form of price controls that could result in fuel shortages. It said President Bush would be urged to veto the legislation should it pass Congress.

The bill needed the approval of two-thirds of the members of the House because the leadership considered it under an expedited legislative process. Thus, the 284-141 vote was only one over the threshold for passage. A similar measure is being considered by the Senate.

The bill would for the first time create a federal law making energy price gouging illegal. It would cover not only gasoline, but also other fuels such as natural gas and heating oil.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., its chief sponsor, in urging his colleagues to support the bill said the issue was whether ``to side with Big Oil (or) ... side with consumers who are being ripped off at the gas pump.''

But Stupak was forced to soften the bill so that he could get it passed by requiring a president to first declare an energy emergency before the anti-gouging law could be enforced. Oil-state Democrats had wanted such limits.

The bill calls for criminal penalties of up to $150 million for corporations and up to $2 million and a jail sentence of up to 10 years for individuals found to be engaged in price gouging.

From here.

Me, I have been driving a Prius since '04 so I'm not feeling it as much as most of the people I know, so maybe I'm not qualified to say this, but you have to consider: Americans pay less for gas than anyone else in the world (except for self-contained oil economies like Venezuela, obvs), and the reason for this discrepancy is that the actual costs of obtaining, transporting and refining what ends up in your gas tank is subsidized by China, hence the record deficit. It's corporate welfare for Bush's friends in Big Oil. So, the same companies that are making higher profits than any other industry are also receiving corporate welfare from the government, borrowed from China, that your children, nieces, nephews, etc. will have to pay for when the wolf comes to the door.

So, in a way, I think that the gas price gouging of the moment is somewhat of a good thing because at least it forces people to think about what they're filling their tanks with -- where it comes from, how it's, you know, finite, and how one incestuous, greed-sick corporate industry has control of it.
post #2 of 21
Quote:
But Stupak was forced to soften the bill so that he could get it passed by requiring a president to first declare an energy emergency before the anti-gouging law could be enforced.
Which, at least with the president, will never happen in a hojillion years so this is all just lip service to make the American Citizen feel better about just having purchased the new H3.
post #3 of 21
Thread Starter 
Right, and also, even if it does pass, Bush will veto it.
post #4 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
Right, and also, even if it does pass, Bush will veto it.
Of course, it passed with a veto-proof majority in the House. A veto-proof majority in the Senate would mean it becomes law despite Bush's veto (assuming all who voted in favor stick to their guns).
post #5 of 21
Thread Starter 
The only way that will ever be possible is if registered republicans rally their congresspeople to vote for it. Otherwise, the rubberstamp still seems to be in place on that side of the aisle.
post #6 of 21
If Congress overrides the veto, it's not like this administration has the slightest respect for the rule of law anyway. It'll just get ignored like every other law these douchebags don't feel like obeying.
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
The only way that will ever be possible is if registered republicans rally their congresspeople to vote for it. Otherwise, the rubberstamp still seems to be in place on that side of the aisle.
Already done in the House:
Quote:
The bill needed the approval of two-thirds of the members of the House because the leadership considered it under an expedited legislative process. Thus, the 284-141 vote was only one over the threshold for passage. A similar measure is being considered by the Senate.
post #8 of 21
Thread Starter 
Clearly I need to read more carefully. Anyway: there's still the whole "President must declare energy emergency" situation Gravedigger points out.

While it's great to see a tiny slice of culpability nudged in the general direction of Big Oil, I do think that the oil situation is untenable, ultimately. Consumers do need to be aware of its true cost in terms of war, foreign debt, ecosystem destruction and CO2 in the atmosphere. The price of gas is really the only access way into people's heads about it at this point in time.
post #9 of 21
So what you're saying is that Congress hates me, the Exxon shareholder.

This is kneejerk populism of the worst kind. Is Congress going to reimburse the oil companies when the risks they take in oil exploration and technology development in unstable countries don't pan out?

Exxon is not to blame for the current spike. Nigerian guerillas are to blame for the current spike.
post #10 of 21
Thread Starter 
Oh, FC. I'm sure your stock will be fine, at least for the next decade until food and water shortages and super-disasters create a humanitarian and security crisis on a scale never before seen in the modern age. Congress clearly loves you, but not as much as Bush does.

And why would Congress be responsible for Big Oil's R&D? Oh, I forgot, Bush administration.

But along that line of logic, are the oil companies going to reimburse the world for the amount of CO2 it's pumping into the environment, and the melting ice caps that will not be able to absorb so much of it anymore? Are they going to reimburse us for the money we have spent on fossil fuels over the decades in which they've suppressed alternate technologies that wouldn't destroy the air we breathe and the environment that makes life on earth possible? Are they going to reimburse the next generation of US taxpayers whose wages will be paying interest on loans that provided them with corporate welfare to ensure this insane level of profit?

Once the cat is out of the bag on what Exxon and its ilk have done -- meaning, once people at large stop treating global warming like the tooth fairy that you can choose to believe in or not -- I wouldn't be surprised if some class action lawsuits come Exxon's way, much like how the public turned on Big Tobacco.

Sorry if this comes off as snarky. Love you, loathe your stockbroker.
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
Sorry if this comes off as snarky. Love you, loathe your stockbroker.
Not at all, yt. I enjoy talking about this stuff with you.

Your argument appears to be, "Oil companies are bad. We should knife them however possible." But scapegoating the oil companies serves no purpose. We need it; they get it. If the oil-based economy in which we're all complicit turns out to have unexpected side effects, then we're all culpable.

With this particular issue, I'm worried more about the idea that it's ok to penalize companies for making money. The idea that companies should somehow charge less than the market will bear just doesn't make sense, particularly when we haven't yet reached the price-per-barrel tipping point that'll drive us, as a society, to reduce our use of the precious black fluid.
post #12 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Not at all, yt. I enjoy talking about this stuff with you.

Your argument appears to be, "Oil companies are bad. We should knife them however possible." But scapegoating the oil companies serves no purpose. We need it; they get it. If the oil-based economy in which we're all complicit turns out to have unexpected side effects, then we're all culpable.
You're right, we are completely culpable ... which is why we need to be the ones to drive and facilitate change. Greed and loopholes in our great democracy account for the bare fact that we are an oil-based economy.

I'm not going to write a list of Big Oil's misdeeds over the decades - I know you're aware of them. Did you know that the people who built the monorail at Disneyland offered to give Los Angeles a monorail for free, and LA was all for it until the oil companies threw money and influence peddling at it? Or that a man who built a car that runs on water was murdered and all of his research stolen? Or that all but a few of the electric cars have been destroyed? Not broken down, destroyed. Those are but a few examples of what we're talking about here.

Quote:
With this particular issue, I'm worried more about the idea that it's ok to penalize companies for making money.
The guys at Enron made money. Are you worried about them being penalized?

Quote:
The idea that companies should somehow charge less than the market will bear just doesn't make sense, particularly when we haven't yet reached the price-per-barrel tipping point that'll drive us, as a society, to reduce our use of the precious black fluid.
As I said earlier, I'm not particularly outraged at the price of gas -- I'm hoping that the greed of Big Oil and those who enable it brings more awareness to what goes into the magic of the "precious black fluid" and the way the energy market has been manipulated into a rigged, short-sighted and evil game.
post #13 of 21
Oil companies throughout the 20th century have done their best to stifle development in vehicles that worked on alternative sources of energy.

And my big fear is that the hybrid craze is going to end us up in the same boat - the gas mileage per gallon will ever slightly, but steadily decrease until there won't be much difference. It's somewhat like that now - look at the gas mileage for the hybrid Escape. It's not terribly much more. Why can't we invent the 100 mile per gallon engine?
post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
...Your argument appears to be, "Oil companies are bad. We should knife them however possible." But scapegoating the oil companies serves no purpose. We need it; they get it...
I don't have a problem with this. I like capitalism. What bothers me is that they experience record profits in the history of time, and they still get subsidies. This is an industry that's important, clearly, but it doesn't need governmental subsidies, at least not now. And if they did need a subsidy to cover some R&D they'd have little trouble getting it (from any administration, but especially the current one).

I'm bothered by the fact that they seem to always win (coddle them when they're up, support them when they're down) and I don't think that makes me unique. So this legislation feeds into people who feel like I do and gives the sense that we might be able to make a stand on the issue. But we all know it will never happen.
post #15 of 21
Thread Starter 
Here's more evidence that Bush loves Exxon more than you:

Quote:
New Bush Scandal Helping Big Oil Companies Hide Billions From Government at Taxpayer Expense
BuzzFlash

Wednesday 24 May 2007

Corruption within the Department of Interior may have allowed oil companies to improperly save billions at the expense of the taxpayers. The Department's Inspector General has already made at least two criminal referals to the FBI and the Justice Department, and Congressional Democrats have launched several investigations and introduced new legislation to fix the problem.

In a nutshell, oil companies leasing federal land to drill for oil are required to pay the government royalties based on a percentage of their sales. But under the Royalty-in-Kind program, the companies can pay in the form of oil and gas instead of cash. The problem is that oil prices have increased more than the value of the oil and gas royalty revenues being recieved, meaning that the oil companies are managing to withhold a growing amount of their profits from Uncle Sam.

As you might guess, Royalty-in-Kind was proposed and remains supported by the oil industry, and Bush implanted officials with deep ties to the oil industry in charge of the agency responsible for enforcing the program, the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

In light of the growing scandal, MMS Director Johnnie Burton has already announced that she will be retiring by the end of May. Burton started an oil exploration business before becoming a staunch Republican politician in Wyoming, where she developed ties with Dick Cheney. Greg Smith became the new head of MMS, but he just announced his own sudden retirement Tuesday.

"It appears this Administration uses retirement like some perverse witness protection program," said Rep. Nick Rahall. "Get them out of the spotlight and off the list of in-the-know folks who could provide damaging evidence. Instead of Watergate's 'follow the money,' the Bush Administration has "follow the retirements.'"

Rep. Rahall is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which held a hearing Wednesday on the Energy Policy Reform and Revitilization Act aimed at eliminating the oil royalty corruption and loopholes, among other things.

Much of the controversy surrounds a mistake inadvertantly created during the Clinton Administration that went unaddressed and not publically acknowledged until 2006. MMS Director Burton claimed at the time that she had only recently discovered the problem, but midlevel officials spotted the mistake in 2000 and the Interior Department's Inspector General and even top Republicans say she either knew or should have known about the mistake as early as 2004.

The delay allowed oil companies to save more money and prevented the chance for easier lease renegotiations since energy prices were much lower at the time.

But wait, there's more! A former Interior auditor-turned-whistleblower revealed that he was ordered by senior Washington officials to drop a case against the Kerr-McGee Corporation for cheating the government out of at least $12 million in royalties. A jury found the company guilty of underpayment, though the case remains pending in federal court on appeal.

MMS Director Burton "is a person who apparently never saw an oil and gas royalty payment audit she liked," Rep. Rahall said Wednesday. "Under her reign, the average number of annual audits conducted plummeted from 540 to 144. And left on the wayside were billions of dollars in royalty payments owed to the American people." As MMS Director, Burton was responsible for auditing participating companies.

The Bush Administration (and the oil industry) want the percentage of oil and gas royalties to double by 2009 and continue to insist that the Royalty-in-Kind scheme is simpler and more efficient because it reduces accounting and transaction efforts. But it is this very reduction in reporting through a de facto "honor system" that has allowed oil companies to keep more money while also preventing the Government Accountability Office from being able to evaluate whether the program is actually profitable to the government.

"The fact that the Interior Department would now take steps to expand this program defies logic," Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said.

Evidence that four top Interior officials were paid as consultants for oil companies hoping for contracts inspired one of the two criminal investigations. With indictments pending and more Congressional hearings planned, there is no telling what else will be revealed in this scandal.
From here.
post #16 of 21
If there is proven price gouging then throw the book at those greedy bastards.

Although higher gas prices are better for the environment, so I'm conflicted.
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy Jankis
I don't have a problem with this. I like capitalism. What bothers me is that they experience record profits in the history of time, and they still get subsidies. This is an industry that's important, clearly, but it doesn't need governmental subsidies, at least not now. And if they did need a subsidy to cover some R&D they'd have little trouble getting it (from any administration, but especially the current one).

I'm bothered by the fact that they seem to always win (coddle them when they're up, support them when they're down) and I don't think that makes me unique.
I can live with that.

By the way, I hate being wrong. From last week's Economist:

The culprit is not the oil price, which has hovered around $60/bbl for months, well below last year's record of $78. Instead, the squeeze comes from a shortage of refining capacity. The difference between the price of the crude oil refineries buy, and that of the petrol they sell, has risen by about $30/bbl - a record, for this time of year.

A number of catalysts are converting refineries into mints. The most immediate factor is an unusually high number of closures for maintenance. Most refineries schedule repairs for the springtime before the summer "driving season" begins. But this year eight times more capacity than usual has been shut down, according to official figures. This is partly because several refineries still have not recovered from accidents, including BP's American plants in 2005 and a fire at a facility belonging to Valero, another refining firm, earlier this year. Chastened by such disasters and the bad publicity they bring, managers are also taking more time and care over maintenance.

...
Just for fun, I looked up CALPERS's stake in Exxon. Get ready: $1,901,583,495.60 (CALPERS June 30, 2006 Annual Investment Report). Perhaps a better headline for this thread should be, "Bush loves California's Teachers More Than Congress Does."

Personal note: YT, I love to argue this stuff with you because you're smart, passionate, and want to make the world a better place. Some day, I'll be happy to buy you a beer and argue in person.
post #18 of 21
Frank, I haven't had any caffeine yet today, so I may just be an idiot (well, with or without caffeine, actually), but are you suggesting lawmakers should weigh the concerns of stockholders over the concerns of the general public?
post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
Frank, I haven't had any caffeine yet today, so I may just be an idiot (well, with or without caffeine, actually), but are you suggesting lawmakers should weigh the concerns of stockholders over the concerns of the general public?
Nah. I was having some fun while suggesting that corporations aren't them. They're us.
post #20 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Personal note: YT, I love to argue this stuff with you because you're smart, passionate, and want to make the world a better place. Some day, I'll be happy to buy you a beer and argue in person.
Thank you, FC. It's mutual. And if the opportunity presents itself I believe I will take you up on that offer.
post #21 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
I was ... suggesting that corporations aren't them. They're us.
Jake, I'd like to expand on this notion.

While I don't think that government should focus on the concerns of stockholders to the detriment of the general public, I think it's reasonable to remember that stockholders are the general public. When government enacts legislation or regulations that affect the value of corporations, it's reasonable to conduct an economic impact study to learn whether the economic consequences of that action outweigh the good that action is supposed to bring about. Does that make sense?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Bush loves Exxon more than you