Ten Billion Reasons
ExxonMobil posted a profit $10,490,000,000 for the third quarter. Let’s do the math: A quarter is thirteen weeks. So, 10.49 divided by 13 equals 807 million dollars a week. It would take five weeks to pay the four billion dollar tax established by proposition 87. One company all by itself could fund California’s leadership in an industry that will give us. independence from foreign energy and the wars necessary to maintain a steady supply of that energy. And there is certainly more than one company selling oil in California.
Four billion dollars is literally a drop in the bucket to them.
Sure, I go with the stick-it-to-‘em crowd. Haven’t they been sticking it to us—forever?
If there was just one reason to vote yes on 87, it would be revenge. Maybe not a good reason, but certainly understandable.
One good reason to vote yes is because of their bad behavior: They tell us they will import more oil so they can beat our tax. That’s just a poor attitude on their part. And also an untrue statement. The current tax on a barrel of oil would be 3.3 cents per gallon. It will cost more than that to import oil.
They know this, they’re hoping we don’t.
True, the law would create an energy bureaucracy. But let’s look at who will sit on the board. People who are expert in their respective fields; scientists and UC Deans. People who probably already have designs for saving energy but have been sat on by Big Oil. Does anyone seriously doubt that the technology already exists to get us off of foreign oil? Are there still people who think the oil companies are run by honest businessmen in an honest, Christian way?
Please.
How hard is it to stuff a turbo diesel engine in a plug-in hybrid vehicle? You’d have a car that could run from here to San Diego on a tank of fuel that could be grown right here in the marginal farmlands of California for next to nothing. Plans to build this car--which already exist--will not see the light of day unless we stand up to big oil. It isn’t just the four billion dollar tax that has them worried. Their future profits would take a huge beating if we all drove cars that got 90 MPG.
Some people still cannot see that the war in Iraq is for oil. I don’t know what to tell them. Perhaps they believe that the record profits of the oil companies since the start of the war are just coincidence. I cannot help them.
This is the most compelling reason to vote yes on 87. The oil companies profit in death. Those profits have been bought with American blood. Couldn’t we do something a little nobler with the proceeds?
What better way to honor our brave soldiers! Instead of giving their lives for private profit, we could all rest easier knowing that they gave their lives freeing us from the need for war.
Comments
Every dime of tax money Exxon pays comes out of their revenue. Their revenue comes from our wallets when we buy gas. Every tax on every business comes out of the income they acrue from sales. Business are only the middlemen/tax collectors for the government. Thanks but I don't need to "stick it" to myself.
Thank you for reading and thank you for writing.
I've often wondered if my blog was being read by the "dittoheads."
Well sir, that's your choice. But you're being "stuck" twice. Once by the oil companies, and again by the government to pay for the war needed for those guys to get their oil to generate their profits.
Oh, and don't forget the soldiers who get "stuck" dying for profits. But that's OK, you can put a "Support our Troops" bumper sticker on your car. That will make their deaths so much easier on you.
Posted by: Ron Acevedo | October 29, 2006 05:44 PM
So many misconceptions... So little time...
1) Are you proposing to confiscate the profits of Exxon?
2) Over the years the taxes we pay for energy far exceed the profits to admittedly selfish Oil Companies. I would be OK with that if the taxes went towards better roads, but the gas tax $$ in CA goes into the general fund. Now they want yet another bond to build roads and infrastructure. How much debt can we pass to our children? I guess we'll find out.
3) Maybe the statement "a car that could run from here to San Diego on a tank of fuel that could be grown right here in the marginal farmlands of California for next to nothing." is true. But it's fanciful to think that hundreds of cars could do this, let alone the millions of cars that are on the roads now. Simply put: There's not enough energy in our biosphere to run even a sizable fraction our vehicles.
4) If it were possible to make a mass-produced vehicle that got 90 MPG, we would be seeing it. We would see it in Europe first, and maybe Japan. Electric cars, if they were really practical, would flourish there fueled by their advanced nuclear-powered electrical grid.
5) Even larger than the idea of "War for Oil" the war is about FREEDOM. Freedom is fueled by free commerce. Much better for the Iraqi oil to supply the Free World with energy, than the terrorists with money under Sadaam and the UN so called Oil for Food Program.
So, my vote will be NO on 87. Just another weird idea that may sound good on the surface, but very impractical in reality.
Thank you for your contribution.
1. If it were up to me, I’d confiscate the profits of Exxon and all the other oil companies too. Oil is a “national interest� that our men and women are dying for. Our taxes are funding the security of their supply. If oil is a national interest, it should be nationalized!
2. This is why I recommend a yes vote on prop 1A. It is not another bond; it merely removes a loophole in a bond already passed.
3. We don’t need millions of cars to run that far. Most cars go less than forty miles per day. Plugged in hybrids wouldn’t need to consume any liquid fuels.
4. I’m a little more cynical than you. GM had an electric car, then recalled them and destroyed them. There was demand, it was ignored. Building a car that reduces profits for big oil is not a safe practice. “Nothin’ personal, it’s jus business.�
5. Except that this war isn’t about freedom. Can you honestly tell me that we give a damn about freedom in countries that have no resources? When will be going to Darfur? Did I miss the war in Rwanda?
Free commerce? That’s a joke! The government gave a tax credit of $100,000 for a Hummer and practically nothing for electric cars. If the market were truly free, we’d have electrics.
Posted by: Frank | November 3, 2006 09:37 AM
We actually agree, in a weird way, more than disagree. We're both looking for solutions for problems we can both see.
1. OK I'll add you to the list of those wanting to nationalize private companies: Marx, Lenin, Hugo Chavez, Mao.
2. I saw your voting guide and actually agree with almost all of it. I'll re-read 1A. Right on, Q!
3. Electric cars are still impractical for our common transportation needs. Promoters ignore the life-cycle costs of making, hauling, and disposing of batteries.
4. Those cars were crushed because of a FEDERAL LAW that sez a car company must continue to make parts for cars that are still on the road. The company thought it best to crush the Toyota RAV4-EV and spend the money developing a newer and better version. Better cars are in our future.
5. Of course we have more interest in countries with resources the Free World needs. Africa's problems are based on the deep corruption in every facet of their gov't.
I submit that better cars will be in our future sooner--and the "battery problem" will be solved sooner when we vote yes on 87.
Posted by: Frank Gouveia | November 4, 2006 10:54 AM