Obama in his DNC acceptance speech talking about the heros of our nation.
"In the face of that young student, who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree, who once turned to food stamps, but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.
[...]And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business or making her way in the world, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman.She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. "
And these impressive feats, thanks to Obama, and the Democratic message, will soon be legends of history. His vision is that no suffering will take place, every person will have health care, every one will have cable (or satellite), everybody will have a Prius to drive. "They" will provide everything that "We the People" have right to. Such as a 30 hour work week, 6 weeks vacation so that we don't go postal and go on any shooting sprees. Instead of worrying how to pay for things, we can just sign everything over to the government and they shall provide. Where $100 of our earned dollars returns at about $20. No more are the days in which you will need to rise above the economic class your in. Everybody will be middle class, except the politicians that so graciously commit their time and energy to making sure our rights (and the rights of animals and the planet) are never violated. They will probably even create a new division of government just to create more rights for the people. How can this be bad???
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
How to Build a Welfare State
I recently read about Frederic Bastiat. He was a French political economist in the 1800's. His views look like a page right out of the Libertarian play book (Life, Liberty, and Property). He derides government for social support of it's poor (or any one else for that matter). That is one of the biggest arguments the "left" has -- Compassion for the poor and needy. Where is your compassion if you are against food stamps? Subsidised living? Health Care for all people?
Well he explains things this way:
"[The socialists declare] that the state owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth.Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ...But is it possible? ...Whence does [the state] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary?...Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the state. The public treasury will be literally pillaged. Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs." Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success." — from Journal des Economistes (emphisis added)
And also a quote by Henry Grady Weaver from his book
THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS:
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own....THE HARM DONE BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, GANGSTERS, AND THIEVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL 'DO-GOODERS', who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)
Sounds like the Hollywood elite. Look how cool I am, I go to Africa and adopt babies, so I know
how government should take care of it's people. Government shouldn't have to "take care" of its people, people should take of people.
Well he explains things this way:
"[The socialists declare] that the state owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth.Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ...But is it possible? ...Whence does [the state] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary?...Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the state. The public treasury will be literally pillaged. Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs." Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success." — from Journal des Economistes (emphisis added)
And also a quote by Henry Grady Weaver from his book
THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS:
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own....THE HARM DONE BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, GANGSTERS, AND THIEVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL 'DO-GOODERS', who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)
Sounds like the Hollywood elite. Look how cool I am, I go to Africa and adopt babies, so I know
how government should take care of it's people. Government shouldn't have to "take care" of its people, people should take of people.
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Proper Role Of Government
In 1968 Ezra Taft Benson wrote a paper titled "The Proper Role Of Government". It explains principals of government in simple terms and, the pitfalls that will lead to the decline of our nation. I don't really see my self as uber patriotic. I do serve in the military and have tremendous respect for all those that serve as well. I do feel "emotional" every time I hear the national anthem. But honestly what I value most is the opportunity to work and prosper. I'm sure there are many freedoms I enjoy that I don't fully recognize, but really the chance to improve my economic comfort is a major quest of life.
Here is an excerpt from the paper
The Basic Error Of Marxism
According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibinsidered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.
The Real Cause Of American Prosperity
Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain. As Henry David Thoreau explained:
"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)
In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:
"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." (Works 8:3)
A Formula For Prosperity
The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula:
Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor. This is not possible without incentive.
Of all forms of incentive - the freedom to attain a reward for one's labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.
I would like to point out that Obama wants to do precisely what Ezra T. Benson is waring us about. I don't have a lot of faith in the politicians of this country. There seems to be a snowball effect in which government gets bigger and bigger (and personal rights get smaller and smaller). For example take universal health care: My biggest concerns are how intrusive the government will be, and how much I will have to pay. In the military medical is part of the package, but with that comes monthly safety briefings on how to climb a ladder, how to wash your hands correctly, how to spot potential safety problems in the work place, how to inspect a radio so that it wont cause a fire when plugged in etc etc... . The only things government should provide us is security, and incentive.
Here is an excerpt from the paper
The Basic Error Of Marxism
According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibinsidered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.
The Real Cause Of American Prosperity
Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain. As Henry David Thoreau explained:
"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)
In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:
"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." (Works 8:3)
A Formula For Prosperity
The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula:
Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor. This is not possible without incentive.
Of all forms of incentive - the freedom to attain a reward for one's labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.
I would like to point out that Obama wants to do precisely what Ezra T. Benson is waring us about. I don't have a lot of faith in the politicians of this country. There seems to be a snowball effect in which government gets bigger and bigger (and personal rights get smaller and smaller). For example take universal health care: My biggest concerns are how intrusive the government will be, and how much I will have to pay. In the military medical is part of the package, but with that comes monthly safety briefings on how to climb a ladder, how to wash your hands correctly, how to spot potential safety problems in the work place, how to inspect a radio so that it wont cause a fire when plugged in etc etc... . The only things government should provide us is security, and incentive.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Robin's Hood
A few weeks ago Glenn Beck talked about taxing the rich to give to the poor. You know Robin Hood stuff. Now, I'm not rich, but I can surely see how bad an idea this is. Of course choosing a level at which you become "rich" is absurd.
Obama defined it in his interview with Rev Rick Warren:
IF YOU ARE MAKING $150 THOUSAND A YEAR OR LESS AS A FAMILY, THEN ARE YOU MIDDLE CLASS OR YOU MAY BE POOR. BUT $150 DOWN, YOU ARE BASICALLY MIDDLE CLASS. OBVIOUSLY IT DEPENDS ON REGION WHERE YOU ARE LIVING. I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF YOU ARE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000 THEN ARE YOU IN THE TOP 3, 4 PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY. YOU DOING WELL. NOW THESE THINGS ARE ALL RELATIVE AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY THAT IS MAKING OVER $250,000 IS LIVING ON EASY STREET, BUT THE QUESTION THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IS IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD SCHOOLS, IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD ROADS, IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT KIDS CAN GO TO COLLEGE, IF WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE A MOUNTAIN OF DEBT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, THEN WE'VE GOT TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS. THEY DON'T COME FOR FREE. AND IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE, I BELIEVE IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE INTER GENERATIONALLY FOR US TO INVEST OR FOR US TO SPEND $10 BILLION A MONTH ON A WAR AND NOT HAVING A WAY TO PAY FOR IT. THAT I THINK IS UNACCEPTABLE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS UNDER THE APPROACH THAT I'M TAKING IF YOU MAKE 150 THOUSAND OR LESS YOU WILL SEE A TAX CUT. IF YOU ARE MAKING $250,000 OR MORE YOU WILL SEE A MODEST INCREASE. WHAT I'M TRYINGTO DO IS CREATE A SENSE OF BALANCE AND FAIRNESS IN OUR TAX CODE. ONE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON IT SHOULD BE SIMPLER SO YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THESE LOOPHOLES AND BIG STACKS OF STUFF THAT YOU'VE GOT TO COME THROUGH WHICH WASTE A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND ALLOWS SPECIAL INTEREST TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THINGS THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.(empasis added)
I like the candor in which he explains things. He makes no apology for taxing those over the $250K mark. My question is is that "balanced" or "Fair"? When you increase taxes on the rich there is a decrease in incentive to work hard to become rich. I'm not talking about those that make $20 million each year, or those that don't have to work due to their amount of wealth, but those on the cusp of that $250k. Is it worth going to 8 years of college knowing that if I am successful I will have to pay my country rather than saving my money to put my kids through college. But apparently Obama says that is where my money will be going anyways. so the question is: who is better at spending my money? Me? Government?
Glenn Beck counter points Obama:
'The rich should be willing to pay more' 'As Barack Obama said, If you believe in good schools, good roads, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college and if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then...we've got to pay for these things' 'You conservative-Christians claim to be so into the Bible, why don't you read it sometime! We're supposed to take care of the poor'
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments
1. Why? Why should anyone be willing to have their hard-earned money taken from them by force, and then wasted by an out-of-control government?
2. So, the only way to have good schools is to spend more money? Then why are some of the worst schools in America, scholastically speaking, in Washington DC, where we spend the most money per student? New York spends the most per student at $14,119 yet ranks 44th in SAT scores. DC ranks 3rd in spending-nearly $13,000 per student, yet ranks 51st, yes dead last. As for leaving a "mountain of debt for the next generation", here's a concept…CUT SPENDING!
3. We sure are. And if you can show me even ONE verse in the King James version of the Bible where it says that governments should tax their citizens more to help the poor, I'll swallow the Bible whole, join the democrat party right now, donate 50% of my income to the federal government, and do bake sale fundraisers for Barack Obama.
INDIVIDUALS have the responsibility to take care of the poor NOT governments…each person is responsible for himself and his family, then if he can't make it, his other family members should step in, then friends, then church organizations. If none of those can help then, as a last resort, the government is there. If we had these values, there would be no need to forcefully take obscene percentages of successful people's income from them.(emphasis added)
Obama defined it in his interview with Rev Rick Warren:
IF YOU ARE MAKING $150 THOUSAND A YEAR OR LESS AS A FAMILY, THEN ARE YOU MIDDLE CLASS OR YOU MAY BE POOR. BUT $150 DOWN, YOU ARE BASICALLY MIDDLE CLASS. OBVIOUSLY IT DEPENDS ON REGION WHERE YOU ARE LIVING. I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF YOU ARE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000 THEN ARE YOU IN THE TOP 3, 4 PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY. YOU DOING WELL. NOW THESE THINGS ARE ALL RELATIVE AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY THAT IS MAKING OVER $250,000 IS LIVING ON EASY STREET, BUT THE QUESTION THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IS IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD SCHOOLS, IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD ROADS, IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT KIDS CAN GO TO COLLEGE, IF WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE A MOUNTAIN OF DEBT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, THEN WE'VE GOT TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS. THEY DON'T COME FOR FREE. AND IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE, I BELIEVE IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE INTER GENERATIONALLY FOR US TO INVEST OR FOR US TO SPEND $10 BILLION A MONTH ON A WAR AND NOT HAVING A WAY TO PAY FOR IT. THAT I THINK IS UNACCEPTABLE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS UNDER THE APPROACH THAT I'M TAKING IF YOU MAKE 150 THOUSAND OR LESS YOU WILL SEE A TAX CUT. IF YOU ARE MAKING $250,000 OR MORE YOU WILL SEE A MODEST INCREASE. WHAT I'M TRYINGTO DO IS CREATE A SENSE OF BALANCE AND FAIRNESS IN OUR TAX CODE. ONE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON IT SHOULD BE SIMPLER SO YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THESE LOOPHOLES AND BIG STACKS OF STUFF THAT YOU'VE GOT TO COME THROUGH WHICH WASTE A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND ALLOWS SPECIAL INTEREST TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THINGS THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.(empasis added)
I like the candor in which he explains things. He makes no apology for taxing those over the $250K mark. My question is is that "balanced" or "Fair"? When you increase taxes on the rich there is a decrease in incentive to work hard to become rich. I'm not talking about those that make $20 million each year, or those that don't have to work due to their amount of wealth, but those on the cusp of that $250k. Is it worth going to 8 years of college knowing that if I am successful I will have to pay my country rather than saving my money to put my kids through college. But apparently Obama says that is where my money will be going anyways. so the question is: who is better at spending my money? Me? Government?
Glenn Beck counter points Obama:
'The rich should be willing to pay more' 'As Barack Obama said, If you believe in good schools, good roads, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college and if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then...we've got to pay for these things' 'You conservative-Christians claim to be so into the Bible, why don't you read it sometime! We're supposed to take care of the poor'
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments
1. Why? Why should anyone be willing to have their hard-earned money taken from them by force, and then wasted by an out-of-control government?
2. So, the only way to have good schools is to spend more money? Then why are some of the worst schools in America, scholastically speaking, in Washington DC, where we spend the most money per student? New York spends the most per student at $14,119 yet ranks 44th in SAT scores. DC ranks 3rd in spending-nearly $13,000 per student, yet ranks 51st, yes dead last. As for leaving a "mountain of debt for the next generation", here's a concept…CUT SPENDING!
3. We sure are. And if you can show me even ONE verse in the King James version of the Bible where it says that governments should tax their citizens more to help the poor, I'll swallow the Bible whole, join the democrat party right now, donate 50% of my income to the federal government, and do bake sale fundraisers for Barack Obama.
INDIVIDUALS have the responsibility to take care of the poor NOT governments…each person is responsible for himself and his family, then if he can't make it, his other family members should step in, then friends, then church organizations. If none of those can help then, as a last resort, the government is there. If we had these values, there would be no need to forcefully take obscene percentages of successful people's income from them.(emphasis added)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Governent vs. Oil Companies
On FactCheck.org the question of who makes more money on gas, the government or the oil companies is answered. Well, sort of.
Q:
Does the government really make more in taxes from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do?
A:
Possibly. Both taxes and profits account for a large share, but which is larger depends on too many unknown factors to allow for a clear answer.
Let’s start with the basics. According to the Energy Information Administration, in February 2008 state and federal excise taxes accounted for 13 percent of the average price per gallon of regular gasoline sold in the U.S. That figures to just under 40 cents per gallon as a national average. However, the actual amount paid varies greatly by state. Federal taxes are a flat 18.4 cents per gallon of regular gasoline, no matter the price at the pump. State taxes range anywhere from 7.5 cents to 34 cents per gallon, according to the Federal Highway Administration. And on top of that, the oil industry points to additional taxes and fees, such as sales taxes and inspection and environmental fees, that drive up the state-local fees to as much as 45.5 cents per gallon (in California).And even these figures don’t account for income taxes that the companies pay on their profits. Those taxes would drive the tax total higher yet, but we know of no authoritative source that has attempted to break down how much income tax should be allocated to each gallon of gasoline. One big problem in trying to calculate such a per-gallon amount is that income can be earned on the sale of any number of products besides gasoline, such as diesel, home heating fuel, jet fuel, natural gas, crude oil and whatever else a company might sell. The same goes for profits. The EIA does not attempt to calculate an average figure for the profit earned on each gallon of gasoline. "It’s not that these guys [the oil companies] are obfuscating; it’s that the processes are intertwined," EIA economist Neal Davis told FactCheck.org. He added that trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be "heroic at best" and "sadly misinformed … at worst."Nevertheless, the oil industry has tried to do something close to that. A publication from the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s principal lobbying arm, displays a graphic stating that "taxes" made up 15 percent of the price of gasoline at the pump in 2007 (that figure comes from EIA) and showing a figure for "earnings" (a measurement API prefers to straight "profit") of 8.3 percent. This figure is the average earnings for the industry per dollar of sales.On closer examination, however, that 8.3 percent earnings figure turns out to be after-tax income. The pre-tax profit margin would be considerably higher. And that’s only an average. The profits of any particular oil company could be higher or lower. For example, in 2007, ExxonMobil's after-tax earnings were 10.4 percent, much higher than the industry average. Furthermore, any particular gallon of gasoline might have passed through several companies as the product moved from the oil well to the refiner to the retailer that owns the pump.Another complicating factor is that the percentages change from month to month, sometimes dramatically. State and federal excise taxes are generally fixed at a certain number of pennies per gallon, so as the price of gasoline rises, the percentage paid in excise taxes goes down. As shown in this breakdown, state and federal excise taxes made up 32 percent of what motorists paid at the pump in January 2000, when the average price for regular was only $1.29."Unfortunately, there’s no real simple answer," says Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation, which conducts economic analyses of energy issues and is supported by oil companies. It depends on when the gasoline was purchased. "If you bought it right now, I’d say the government is making more." If the gasoline was purchased a month ago or last year, that may not have been the case. And the answer further depends on what type of company the question refers to. Refineries, Pugliaresi says, are hurting right now. "If you’re an independent refinery, the answer is definitely they’re making a lot less than the government." So, to the question of whether motorists pay more per gallon to the government than to oil-company profits, we can say only this: The answer depends on the state in which the fuel is purchased, the company that produced it and sold it, and when the motorist bought it.-Lori Robertson
Sources
American Petroleum Institute. "The Truth About Oil and Gasoline: An API Primer," 31 March 2008.U.S. Energy Information Administration. Gasoline Components History. What we pay for in a gallon of regular gasoline, accessed 8 April 2008. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Tax Rates on Motor Fuel, 14 Feb. 2008.
Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of PennsylvaniaFactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
Link here to the site to follow the links in the article. You should also look further into what oil companies have to go through to get rights to drill for oil, and what it takes to refine oil into gas. if you base it on risk, then the government makes a lot of money per risk taken, whereas the oil companies make little per risk.
Q:
Does the government really make more in taxes from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do?
A:
Possibly. Both taxes and profits account for a large share, but which is larger depends on too many unknown factors to allow for a clear answer.
Let’s start with the basics. According to the Energy Information Administration, in February 2008 state and federal excise taxes accounted for 13 percent of the average price per gallon of regular gasoline sold in the U.S. That figures to just under 40 cents per gallon as a national average. However, the actual amount paid varies greatly by state. Federal taxes are a flat 18.4 cents per gallon of regular gasoline, no matter the price at the pump. State taxes range anywhere from 7.5 cents to 34 cents per gallon, according to the Federal Highway Administration. And on top of that, the oil industry points to additional taxes and fees, such as sales taxes and inspection and environmental fees, that drive up the state-local fees to as much as 45.5 cents per gallon (in California).And even these figures don’t account for income taxes that the companies pay on their profits. Those taxes would drive the tax total higher yet, but we know of no authoritative source that has attempted to break down how much income tax should be allocated to each gallon of gasoline. One big problem in trying to calculate such a per-gallon amount is that income can be earned on the sale of any number of products besides gasoline, such as diesel, home heating fuel, jet fuel, natural gas, crude oil and whatever else a company might sell. The same goes for profits. The EIA does not attempt to calculate an average figure for the profit earned on each gallon of gasoline. "It’s not that these guys [the oil companies] are obfuscating; it’s that the processes are intertwined," EIA economist Neal Davis told FactCheck.org. He added that trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be "heroic at best" and "sadly misinformed … at worst."Nevertheless, the oil industry has tried to do something close to that. A publication from the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s principal lobbying arm, displays a graphic stating that "taxes" made up 15 percent of the price of gasoline at the pump in 2007 (that figure comes from EIA) and showing a figure for "earnings" (a measurement API prefers to straight "profit") of 8.3 percent. This figure is the average earnings for the industry per dollar of sales.On closer examination, however, that 8.3 percent earnings figure turns out to be after-tax income. The pre-tax profit margin would be considerably higher. And that’s only an average. The profits of any particular oil company could be higher or lower. For example, in 2007, ExxonMobil's after-tax earnings were 10.4 percent, much higher than the industry average. Furthermore, any particular gallon of gasoline might have passed through several companies as the product moved from the oil well to the refiner to the retailer that owns the pump.Another complicating factor is that the percentages change from month to month, sometimes dramatically. State and federal excise taxes are generally fixed at a certain number of pennies per gallon, so as the price of gasoline rises, the percentage paid in excise taxes goes down. As shown in this breakdown, state and federal excise taxes made up 32 percent of what motorists paid at the pump in January 2000, when the average price for regular was only $1.29."Unfortunately, there’s no real simple answer," says Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation, which conducts economic analyses of energy issues and is supported by oil companies. It depends on when the gasoline was purchased. "If you bought it right now, I’d say the government is making more." If the gasoline was purchased a month ago or last year, that may not have been the case. And the answer further depends on what type of company the question refers to. Refineries, Pugliaresi says, are hurting right now. "If you’re an independent refinery, the answer is definitely they’re making a lot less than the government." So, to the question of whether motorists pay more per gallon to the government than to oil-company profits, we can say only this: The answer depends on the state in which the fuel is purchased, the company that produced it and sold it, and when the motorist bought it.-Lori Robertson
Sources
American Petroleum Institute. "The Truth About Oil and Gasoline: An API Primer," 31 March 2008.U.S. Energy Information Administration. Gasoline Components History. What we pay for in a gallon of regular gasoline, accessed 8 April 2008. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Tax Rates on Motor Fuel, 14 Feb. 2008.
Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of PennsylvaniaFactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.
Link here to the site to follow the links in the article. You should also look further into what oil companies have to go through to get rights to drill for oil, and what it takes to refine oil into gas. if you base it on risk, then the government makes a lot of money per risk taken, whereas the oil companies make little per risk.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Hockey Sticks
On the Climate related blogs there is a lot of talk about the "hockey stick" graph. (illustrated below).
Basically, this is the graph (true or not) that Al Gore used in his Inconvenient Truth and the IPCC have used to make policy regarding Global Warming. Bishop Hill, has summarized the graph and how it came to be, along with why it may not be as accurate as the "world" believes.
Basically, this is the graph (true or not) that Al Gore used in his Inconvenient Truth and the IPCC have used to make policy regarding Global Warming. Bishop Hill, has summarized the graph and how it came to be, along with why it may not be as accurate as the "world" believes.Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Polar Bears For Dinner
I did some checking on Polar Bears. Just how "threatened" are they? That all depends on the amount of arctic sea ice. Here is what Factcheck.org has to say.
Monday, August 11, 2008
I Love The Egg
A little egg enjoyment.
I got this from Life, Liberty, and Property Blog.
I can't believe anything this good coming from anywhere but Japan, but the english is just too good.
I got this from Life, Liberty, and Property Blog.
I can't believe anything this good coming from anywhere but Japan, but the english is just too good.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Scientists Against Scientific Consensus
A little more on the "settled" science of global warming, and the universal consensus among the scientific community. I found a link from Glenn Beck to a site where scientists can sign their skepticism of global warming. Apparently 31,000 have signed. They also have a 12 page letter outlining their position.
One big argument that I often hear (even from John McCain) is that true or false what harm is there in reducing our greenhouse carbon output. I will admit there are many goods that come from increasing MPG in cars, switching to some renewable cleaner fuels to improve air quality, conservation to lower out of pocket costs for home energy. But the steps outlined by Kyoto, or subsequent meetings would devastate our economy. Fuel, Food, and luxuries would be so outrageously expensive only the "rich" would be able to afford them. Pretty much all economic progress made over the last 100 years would be undone. And frankly I don't even know what the goal is. Do we want Global cooling? Seems like I remember in the 80's that we were heading for an ice age. Do we want to maintain the current temperature? To that all I have to say is: ENTROPY. Energy required to maintain anything in nature has to be equal to the forces moving to greater randomness. The biggest question is then are in positive or negative feedback. and here
One big argument that I often hear (even from John McCain) is that true or false what harm is there in reducing our greenhouse carbon output. I will admit there are many goods that come from increasing MPG in cars, switching to some renewable cleaner fuels to improve air quality, conservation to lower out of pocket costs for home energy. But the steps outlined by Kyoto, or subsequent meetings would devastate our economy. Fuel, Food, and luxuries would be so outrageously expensive only the "rich" would be able to afford them. Pretty much all economic progress made over the last 100 years would be undone. And frankly I don't even know what the goal is. Do we want Global cooling? Seems like I remember in the 80's that we were heading for an ice age. Do we want to maintain the current temperature? To that all I have to say is: ENTROPY. Energy required to maintain anything in nature has to be equal to the forces moving to greater randomness. The biggest question is then are in positive or negative feedback. and here
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Al Gore, Smarter Than You Might Think
I used to think Al Gore was an idiot. What would our country be like if he were elected president? But, now just look at how much money he is making, mostly from climate change hysteria. His speech challenging the government to 100% renewable energy in 10 years seems absolutely ridiculous, but can you imagine just how much money that will bring him? Just in case people don't listen to his prophetic word, and if it turns out he is right he has a plan.
Good luck "Gore-Al" and may your posterity prosper for ever!!
Good luck "Gore-Al" and may your posterity prosper for ever!!
Monday, August 4, 2008
Stop Global Warming
stopglobalwarming.org teaches about global warming, and how to stop it (in case you want to). Apparently all the science points to a unanimous consensus such that further study on the cause of global warming appears to be worthless.
The results are in and the reality of global warming is beyond dispute or
debate. It’s not just an environmental issue. It affects our public health
and national security. It’s an urgent matter of survival for everyone on
the planet — the most urgent threat facing humanity today. It’s going to
take action from you and all of us working together. Global warming isn’t
opinion. It’s a scientific reality. And the science tells us that human
activity has made enormous impacts to our planet that affect our well-being
and even our survival as a species.
The world’s leading science
journals report that glaciers are melting ten times faster than previously
thought, that atmospheric greenhouse gases have reached levels not seen for
millions of years, and that species are vanishing as a result of
climate
change. They also report of extreme weather events, long-term droughts, and
rising sea levels.
Roy Spencer testified before congress on June 22, 2008, mostly explaining that the climate models used in many research in global warming are not all correct.
While it will take some time for the research community to
digest this new information, it must be mentioned that new research
contradicting the latest IPCC report is entirely consistent with the normal
course of scientific progress. I predict that in the coming years, there will be
a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of
the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is
relatively minor.I hope that the Committee realizes that, if true, these new
results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of
human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated
— not attacked and maligned.
And given that virtually no research into
possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time
for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global
warming research. This Committee could, at a minimum, make a statement that
encourages that goal.
Any valid study that shows discrepancies in the "established, beyond dispute or debate" science should be celebrated. People that so adamantly insist on environmental impact studies for any new development, are so willing to believe that the earth is imminent peril, that they are willing to stop as much carbon producing industry as to revert back to life as it was in the 1800's, without an objective evaluation of the science. And taking the country's economy down with it.
They don't want the price of gas lower, that would mean more carbon emitting cars.
They don't want a thriving polar bear, that would mean admitting the arctic really isn't melting away.
I learned pretty early on in my scholastic career that if any question on a test spoke in absolutes it was mostly likely wrong. If true in medical science, why would it differ in climate science?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
