Back in February, after Exxon Mobil reported a record profit for 2007, I got tired of all the demagoguery about Exxon's "obscene profits" and posted about their obscene tax bill. Exxon paid $30 billion in taxes in 2007 — that's a tax rate of more than 40%.
So yesterday, Exxon reported a record quarterly profit, and every news story in every medium has trumpeted that in tones ranging from barely neutral to strongly disapproving. Only a few have mentioned the tax side of the story:
The $14.8 billion earned during the third-quarter broke the Irving, Texas-based company’s own record last quarter of $11.7 billion.
Exxon said net income jumped nearly 58% to $2.86 a share in the three month period from July through September. That compares with $9.41 billion, or $1.70 a share, during the same period a year ago.
…
Profits soared while crude oil prices hit record highs in the summer, pushing gasoline prices above $4 a gallon in most areas of the U.S.
ExxonMobil’s fourth-quarter profits are expected to fall in tandem with the coinciding decline in the price of oil. A barrel of crude oil was selling for about $65 on Thursday, down from a high of $147 in July.
But record earnings translated to record taxes.
ExxonMobil, which operates within a 43.3% tax rate, paid $11.3 billion in income taxes, $9.3 billion in sales taxes and $11.85 billion in other taxes. That comes to $32.51 billion in taxes during the current quarter.
Notice that Exxon's profit grew 58% from the third quarter last year, but it's tax bill for the quarter is bigger than the total for all of last year — and more than twice the quarterly profit! Now, I'm pretty certain that's caused by a significant lumpiness in tax payments, not an actual quadrupling of their taxes. But their tax rate continues to grow, causing their taxes to become more "obscene" faster than their profits.
I noted in February that U.S. oil companies have paid taxes at an average rate of 45% since 1977, meaning that:
… the investors who financed all the exploration, drilling, processing, refining, and distribution (and the concomitant job creation) have had to settle for just over half the profit that their risk-taking created and made possible — and then they had to pay personal income taxes on that.
To the economically illiterate (and the envy-driven), profits are obscene. To me, 40+% taxes are obscene.
Last night, ABC's Nightline featured another attempt to smear Gov. Sarah Palin. But I think they made a strategic mistake. They interspersed their reports of purported anonymous McCain campaign insiders purportedly criticizing Palin for going "off the reservation" in recent appearances with actual footage of Palin speaking at those appearances.
I thought she was great in those clips and cheered what she said. I suspect I'm not the only one who had that reaction.
If the McCain-Palin campaign emerges victorious (which the less-rigged polls suggest is a real possibility), I think much of the credit belongs to Sarah Palin.
It's been apparent to me for years that many members of the literati and glitterati are not only ill-informed, but also not quite right in the head. But for evidence of the sheer raving lunacy rampant among the "arts and letters" crowd, it's hard to beat an interview that author Erica Jong recently gave in Italy. Jason Horowitz has translations of some of Jong's "more spirited" quotes:
"The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged."
"My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves."
"My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium."
"After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…"
"If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets."
"Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act."
Gee, after seeing this picture, I'm sorry I didn't watch the Obama infomercial. Looks like it was fun. It's hard to imagine Obama being annoyingly brash and loud, but ShamWow means "annoyingly brash and loud," doesn't it?
(Courtesy of Freeper Gloucester by way of NewsBusters)
There is something odd — and dare I say novel — in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies. We think of places like Argentina and Egypt and Iran, of multitudes brought together by their zeal for a Peron or a Nasser or a Khomeini. In these kinds of societies, the crowd comes forth to affirm its faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right.
As the late Nobel laureate Elias Canetti observes in his great book, "Crowds and Power" (first published in 1960), the crowd is based on an illusion of equality: Its quest is for that moment when "distinctions are thrown off and all become equal. It is for the sake of this blessed moment, when no one is greater or better than another, that people become a crowd." These crowds, in the tens of thousands, who have been turning out for the Democratic standard-bearer in St. Louis and Denver and Portland, are a measure of American distress.
On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen. Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish. The coalition that has propelled his quest — African-Americans and affluent white liberals — has no economic coherence. But for the moment, there is the illusion of a common undertaking — Canetti's feeling of equality within the crowd. …
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation (research arm of the National Taxpayers Union) compared the campaign platforms of the U.S. Senate candidates in Colorado, Nebraska, and New Mexico, and assessed the fiscal impact of their promises. In the Colorado race, Mark Udall's promises are far more expensive than Bob Schaffer's:
In preparing the study, NTUF reviewed the candidates' campaign Web sites and news reports to find any proposals that would impact the federal budget. Cost estimates come from a variety of independent sources, including Congressional Budget Office reports and data from NTUF's BillTally cost-accounting system, which since 1991 has computed a net annual agenda for each Member of Congress based on their sponsorship of bills. Among the findings:
Udall has offered 54 proposals that would affect federal spending – 25 of which would increase annual outlays, three of which would decrease expenditures, and 26 of which have unquantifiable fiscal effects — for a net annual spending hike of $55.3 billion.
Schaffer has offered 41 budget-related items — nine of which would boost annual federal spending, three of which would cut it, and 29 of which have costs that could not be calculated – for a net annual spending hike of $5.8 billion.
In fact, of the six candidates in the three states analyzed, Mark Udall is by far the biggest spender. The runner-up, at $25 billion, is New Mexico Democratic candidate Tom Udall. Maybe it's something in the DNA.
The most frugal of the six is New Mexico Republican candidate Steve Pearce, with a net increase of only $345 million.
I suspect that most of the estimates significantly understate the true cost. Many of the campaign promises have a fiscal impact judged "unquantifiable." I strongly suspect that "unquantifiable" is not "costless" — not by a long shot.
The analyses for all six (in PDF form) are linked on this summary page.
Last night, I gassed up at King Soopers (that's a supermarket, a Kroger subsidiary, for you easterners). Taking advantage of the ten-cent discount I'd earned buying groceries, I paid $2.239 per gallon. That's quite a drop from the $4.19 or so I paid back in July. So I completely understand Walter Williams' latest column, Wackonomics:
For the U.S. Congress, news media, pundits and much of the American public, a lot of economic phenomena can be explained by what people want, human greed and what seems plausible. I'm going to name this branch of economic "science" wackonomics and apply it to some of today's observations and issues.
Since July this year, crude oil prices have fallen from $147 to $64 a barrel. Similarly, average gasoline prices have fallen from over $4 to a national average of $2.69 a gallon. When crude oil and gasoline were reaching their historical highs, Congress and other wackoeconomists blamed it on greedy oil company CEOs in their lust for obscene profits. But what explains today's lower prices? The only answer, consistent with wackonomic theory, is easy: Oil company CEOs have lost their lust for obscene profits. …
Speaking of CEOs, there's the "unconscionable," "obscene" salaries they receive, in some cases over $10 million a year. Wackonomics has an easy answer for these high salaries: it's greed. However, CEOs don't have the corner on greed. There are other greedy people we don't scorn but hold in high esteem. According to Forbes' Celebrity 100 list, Oprah Winfrey receives $275 million, Steven Spielberg gets $130 million, Tiger Woods $115 million, Jay Leno $32 million and Dr. Phil $40 million. I need to talk to these people and learn their strategy. I've been making every effort to get that kind of money. I go to bed greedy, dream greedy dreams, awaken greedy and proceed through the day greedy. Despite my heroic efforts, it's all been for naught; I earn a pittance by comparison.
I just saw Ben Stein interviewed by Craig Ferguson on the Late Late Show. He praised McCain effusively, but said his first impression of Sarah Palin, upon meeting her prior to some local talk show, was that she must be a hooker promoting a sex book.
Ben Stein is a conservative whose most recent claim to fame is a ridiculous documentary film promoting the anti-science, anti-reason "creation science" against the theory of evolution.
His dissing of Palin echoes what other members of the "intelligentsia," right and left, have said.
Apparently, the New York / Washington / Hollywood "intelligentsia" simply can't take seriously a woman who just happens to be cute or pretty.
It seems to me that that's the worst kind of sexism.
Speaking of media bias, would a major metropolitan newspaper withhold from the public material evidence regarding the character, beliefs, and associations of a presidential candidate? It's happening right now, according to Andrew McCarthy:
Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor … who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.
Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.
Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?
Do we really have to ask?
So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.
The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.
Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?
McCarthy excerpted at length from the "gentle story" about the event that the Times published in April and put that information into perspective. Read the whole thing.
Top technology writer Michael S. Malone is upset by what's happened to his profession:
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.
You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. …
… I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.
So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul. …
Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.
Read the whole thing. There's much more, and Malone has an interesting theory on who's to blame and what motivates them.
In a 2001 Chicago public radio interview, then State Sen. Barack Obama said one of the failures of the civil rights movement was that it became court-focused, and the Supreme Court never addressed "the redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of economic justice in this society." He called it a tragedy that the civil rights movement failed to put together "the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." And he regretted that the Constitution addresses only "negative liberties" — what the government can't do to you — and not "positive liberties" — what the government "must do on your behalf."
Here are key excerpts from the interview. Please share this with your non-socialist friends.
Contrary to what the Obama campaign and its mouthpieces in the mainstream media have been saying, Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment to Joe the Plumber hasn't been distorted, misrepresented, or overblown.
Obama really is a radical leftist, a socialist at heart, and someone who makes the George McGovern of 1972 sound like a moderate centrist.
Exactly what I'd expect from someone whose intellectual mentors, allies, friends, and colleagues include Saul Alinsky, Father Pfleger, the Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Alice Palmer, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga …
As Ken Blackwell said recently about Obama's fraudulent promise of "tax cuts" that are really disguised income redistribution, "Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist."
I'm getting to it a bit late, but this October 9 column by Orson Scott Card (who is, by the way, a Democrat) deserves your attention. It discusses the source of the housing/financial crisis and the mendacity of the media in reporting it, and it's addressed to "the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America":
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" (http://snipurl.com/457to): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.
There's much more. Read the whole thing. The extent to which the vast majority of journalists are now promoting, protecting, cheerleading for, covering up for, and flat-out lying on behalf of Obama and the Democrats is shameful.
With Colin Powell now repeating the lie that Barack Obama has "always been a Christian," despite new information further confirming Obama's Muslim childhood (such as the Indonesian school registration listing him as Muslim), one watches with dismay as the Democratic candidate manages to hide the truth on this issue.
Instead, then, let us review a related subject – Obama's connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism."
Pipes goes on to cite a plethora of sources documenting Obama's ties to both Islamist organizations and the Nation of Islam specifically (read the whole thing). He then states (emphasis added):
That Obama's biography touches so frequently on such unsavory organizations as CAIR and the Nation of Islam should give pause. How many of politicians have a single tie to either group, much less seven of them? John McCain charitably calls Obama "a person you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States," but Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees.
In other words, the only way Barack Obama can get a job in the White House is by being elected to it, because he'd fail the background check if he applied for any job there.
It's infuriating that McCain, in his ongoing quest to campaign as "Mr. Nice Guy," dismissed the legitimate concerns many people have about Obama (and others would have if the McCain campaign gave them the facts). McCain's "charitable" statement stupidly insulated Obama from questions and criticisms that are entirely legitimate and that McCain himself ought to be raising. Is this fool not on his own side, or what?
I really wish I didn't have to vote for John McCain. But the alternative is so frightening and dangerous, I have no choice. So I'll hold my nose and do it. Please … you, too.
I'm tired and not up for a detailed review, but I highly recommend this film. You can see a 30-minute version on the website and pre-order the full-length film, which ships Oct. 29. This film is more low-key than Obsession because it's focused on the "soft" or "political" jihad instead of violent jihad. But in many ways, it's even more compelling and disturbing.
The film is narrated by a real moderate — and heroic — Muslim, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. I've posted about (and donated to) his organization, American Islamic Forum for Democracy in the past. The film also features Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Phares, Joe Lieberman, Mark Steyn, Bernard Lewis, and Melanie Phillips.
I suspect that viewers of The Third Jihad will fall into three groups: (1) those who go into denial, say to themselves that none of it is true or real, and just put it out of their heads; (2) those who get quite depressed, discouraged, and hopeless (this is an unfortunate, but understandable reaction; the film suggests that Western Civilization faces a grim future if things don't change); and (3) those who are motivated (or even more motivated) to take action to defend the values of liberty and democracy against barbarism.
I'm in the third group. As soon as I got home, I made online donations to the Clarion Fund, The Third Jihad, the new associated site, RadicalIslam.org, and AIFD. Please check out these fine organizations and watch the short online version of The Third Jihad. See if there's a theatrical screening in your area — or contact them about scheduling one! Or order the full-length DVD and then have some friends over to watch it with you.
I'd really like you to join me in the third group.
