Oil company executives stand up to Congress

I don’t blame them if some of the answers were confrontational. This attack on big oil profits with Congress-critters spouting off crap like “don’t you think it’s better to give kids education grants instead of giving you profit” is unmistakably stupid. I’m sick of these attacks.

It’s the same stupid playbook they used during the summer of 2008 when Democrat lawmakers openly suggested the federal government should just take over the oil industry.

Why does the media continue to group all of the big oil companies together when they report profits? Tell me … for what other industry does the media do this? When they report on the fast food industry profits, do they combine the earnings of Burger King, McDonalds, KFC, Chick-Fil-A and Taco Bell?

I think not. It’s pathetic journalism simply designed to push an agenda. Oil is bad.

The oil company profits are at about 6 percent. The top non-alcoholic beverage industry stocks average more than a 14 percent net profit margin. Pharmaceuticals are near 17 percent. Apple’s net profit margin is more than 20 percent.

Democrats and the media continue to use dollars when they should be using profit percentages. There is no excuse to not doing this unless they want to sensationalize a story.

Democrats have pulled these stunts in the past, and today – if you actually took the time to review what was said in the hearings – they stood their ground and made the Congress-critters look like fools.

Good for them.

Update: Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit points out it’s not about the price of gasoline, since just about every Democrat agrees the proposed legislation to take away the ability for US oil companies to write off expenses would not lower the price at all.

The government just wants more money … that money certainly does not belong to the stockholders of the companies …

From RepublicanSenate.gov

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “You know, this is not going to change the price at the gasoline pump. That’s not the issue.  I don’t see that as an issue at all. The issue I see is who shares.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 5/12/11)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA):
“It will not reduce gasoline prices by one penny.” “I would just like to add my strong voice to urging my colleagues to read this bill, to look at it and understand the inherent unfairness in it, the lack of significant deficit reduction, and the fact that it will not, although it is being touted as, it will not reduce gasoline prices by one penny.” (Sen. Landrieu, Floor Remarks, 5/11/11)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “It won’t decrease prices at the pump.” “There is a lot of talk right now about ending tax incentives for oil and gas industry, but the high profits right now of these companies are easy targets. But one thing Alaskans know, just because you have an easy target doesn’t mean it is the right thing to shoot. It won’t decrease prices at the pump for our families and small businesses. It will discourage companies, especially the independents, from domestic investment and job creation.” (Sen. Begich, Floor Remarks, 5/11/11)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “This was never intended to talk about lowering prices.”
(CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 5/11/11)

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ):
“Nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing gas prices.” (“McCaskill: Savings From Cutting Oil Tax Breaks Should Be For Deficit Reduction,” The Hill’s E2 Wire Blog, 5/10/11)

7 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    The other side of the coin is that it will likely RAISE oil prices, in costs being passed to the consumer, as well as less money available to invest in costlier extraction procedures.
    ?
    The government makes at least FOUR times what the dreaded oil companies make on a gallon.? Isn’t a few billion a small (but fair) price to pay for that parasitic relationship?
    ?
    As I have said before, government isn’t supporting the oil companies, rather, oil companies are supporting the government.

  2. essneff
    essneff says:

    more classwarfare….. more bs……. put the blame on the fact that we have not built a oil refinery since the 70s on the oil companies….. the price goes up because the “young” president (sorry Jim) wants to give bigger tax breaks to the technology of the 19th century..

    great post, Steve!

  3. TomL
    TomL says:

    Steve I always wondered what the percentage was, Thanks for doing the research on that.? I always look for a 10% return on any investment I make.?If I were the CEO’s I would have brought a list of all the people who got grants and donations from their companies and told them this is what we do. Take the handcuffs off the oil companies and let them drill and build refineries. You can build refineries out west in shale oil country and not disturb a soul. That is wide open undeveloped land that nobody lives on but obama is confiscating from the states so there can be no drilling. Until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuel all taxpayers want is cost certainty so we can go about our daily lives.

  4. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    I don’t think the other industries even come close in terms of receiving federal subsidies, though. Could that be a reason why big oil executives and not, say, fast food executives, go through this?

  5. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    @HamHocks: Did you just type “receiving federal subsidies?” No, no, NO. They don’t “receive” one dime from the federal government. “Subsidies” are business expenses, not government hand outs. Every business has “expenses” and oil companies have expenses. President Obama is trying to redefine expenses!

  6. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    Hi, Steve. I understand that they don’t get handouts. I’m talking about indirect subsidies and tax breaks. I’m not going arguing for either side here, I’m pointing out the difference between the oil and fast food industries with regards to what might put one industry under the microscope versus another.

Comments are closed.