Hopey-Changey Stuff

January 22, 2009

Do YOU have skills?  Are you a construction worker?  Most importantly, are you WHITE? 

If you are a combination of any of the above, f’get about Big O stimulus money.  Awesome.  Though I see what Reich is driving at.

This sounds like SUCH a new, refreshing idea.  

  • Pickens energy projects bleeding cash.  Whowouldathunkit?  Actually, this is to be expected when trying to lay the infrastructure for a coming boom.  Via Instapundit
  • Another take on the Shuler dock swap debacle.  He seems to have done nothing wrong, but it does seem suspicious…
  • WNC economy growing, albeit slowly
  • McCain did sound good last night.  “I don’t want to get to overheated about what occurred tonight, but I do think McCain had a clear and decisive victory over Obama. It all comes down to something that Phil Bredesen, the Democratic governor of Tennessee recently said about Obama: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.””
  • Finally, Michael Phelps is the most dominant swimmer of this, or any, generation.  I don’t want to take anything away from Michael because what he’s done is amazing.  However, swimming is predisposed to large medal counts.  Its got multiple strokes, medleys, and relays; but, they’re all closely related and have a high degree of carryover.  Personally, I think U.S. women’s softball, or Alexander Karelin were much more dominating than Phelps.  Just my take.
  • An the Bolivarian beat goes on….
  • All pain, 0 gain.  Robert Ferguson lets tells the Shaftesbury Society that, if North Carolina emissions were to go to 0, no campfires, nothing, that China would make up for the lost emissions in only 31 days.  The Locker Room says that they’ll post the entire thing later today. 
  • C’mon why would we actually want an experienced President?  I mean, it’s not like he makes decisions that have an impact on the entire world…wait, never mind.  The next-big-thing, Bobby Jindal, explains why Obama’s statements about Russia and Georgia were that far off.
  • The Chearleader, Larry Kudlow, on public support for drilling…”Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) support offshore oil drilling, according to a new Rasmussen poll. And 42 percent say offshore oil drilling would have the biggest impact in terms of reducing oil prices. Only 20 percent of Americans now oppose offshore drilling. And in terms of reducing oil prices, building more nuclear plants and developing more fuel-efficient cars rate only 16 percent.”



The Washington Post disagrees with Barry’s windfall profits tax proposal.

Modifying his previous opposition to tapping the reserve, Mr. Obama would swap more-expensive light crude held there for cheaper heavy crude “with the goal of bringing down prices at the pump.” President Bill Clinton did such a swap in September 2000 — yes, just before another presidential election — and President Bush released oil in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina. Both moves led to drops in the spot price of crude but not the sort of relief at the pump that Mr. Obama promises. Even if they had, any relief from Mr. Obama’s plan would be temporary while compromising a reserve intended to protect against disruptions in supply caused by wars, boycotts and the like.

Meanwhile, thanks to high crude oil prices, energy companies are, indeed, reaping immense profits. In the second quarter of 2008, Exxon and Shell each made over $11.5 billion. However, Mr. Obama’s proposal to take some of this money from Big Oil and distribute it, like Robin Hood, to hard-pressed American families doesn’t make economic sense. To be sure, Mr. Obama would not copy the tax enacted under President Jimmy Carter in 1980, which netted $40 billion before its repeal in 1988 while imposing huge administrative burdens — and retarding domestic oil production. Mr. Carter’s tax was levied per-barrel, so it directly increased the marginal cost of producing crude — and made figuring out which barrels to tax ridiculously complicated. Mr. Obama wants a surtax on net oil company profits above a “reasonable” level. The tax would be set high enough to raise $65 billion over the next five years, and the revenue would fund a one-shot tax rebate that Mr. Obama would like to give to families and individuals this year.

Making Exxon surrender money that is now falling into its lap would not necessarily affect its longer-term plans or incentives. Indeed, some of Big Oil’s “windfall” already will go to the government: The more profit the companies earn, the more corporate income tax they pay. But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump — thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.

I cannot understand why anyone would think Exxon and friends wouldn’t pass the cost of this tax onto consumers.  It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye…or has to pay more.  HT-Instapundit

Exit Stage Left

July 31, 2008

Will Barry’s naivete hurt us in the long run?  Miguel Guanipa argues that Obama is trying to cram an entire lifetimes worth of experience in just a few weeks.  I can’t help but think about Vienna and what Khrushchev thought about JFK.  It’s never a good thing if your opponents feel that you’re weak and inexperienced.