Photo: news.nationalgeographic.com

I have been getting several responses to my previous blog on Exxon tax payments in which I said “we do not tax their absurd profits.” I was not being clear; I am not saying that Exxon doesn’t pay their taxes, just that their unreasonable profits aren’t taxed at a higher rate. Yes it is true that Exxon paid over $9 billion in taxes last year, but it was not to only the United States but also several foreign governments.

Based on what they paid in taxes their overall effective income tax rate is 46%. But keep in mind that this is to several governments, not just ours. So to say that they pay a higher tax rate than other corporations is false.

I know that there is a media bias towards bad news and I do not want to advance that agenda. My point with the blog was to try to come to an understanding as to why we pay over $4 a gallon for gas and how a company that sells the gas is making record profits.

Saudi Arabia has said, “There is no justification for the current rise in prices,” and Congress doesn’t seem to care. They shoot down a bill that would not only end tax breaks for oil companies, but also tax their windfall profits and make a way for energy price gouging a federal crime. (Why is energy price gouging not a federal crime by the way? We will talk about this on another day.) On the same day they shoot down a bill to provide companies who develop alternative energy tax credits.

The only tax breaks oil companies should be receiving are for research into alternative energy.

We are told that the high cost of gas at the pump is because of a supply and demand problem. If there is such a supply & demand problem with oil how can a company make a record profit? If oil costs more, wouldn’t their profits stay the same? Let’s look at a simple example:

Product A costs its maker $2, the company sells it for $4, making a $2 profit.
The materials for product A shoot up and it now costs $3 to make the product. The company now must sell it for $5 to maintain their current profit.

How can the company have record profits without raising their price? (Keep in mind that energy price gouging is not a federal crime…yet)

The company must raise it’s price to make ‘record profits’ such as Exxon has done. The company starts to sell product A for $10 citing a supply and demand problem. They are now making $5 profit per item.

The whole situation with oil in our country is complicated, gee I wonder why. If it were clear the people would demand that the people who they elect to represent them would do something about it.

I just wish we could put our energies into solutions instead of labeling people as left or right.

Yesterday Senate Republicans blocked the vote of a bill that would tax the windfall profits of oil companies as well as end their tax breaks. The Republicans said that we need to focus on more sources for oil.

Does this rub anyone else the wrong way? We are paying over $4 a gallon for gas in this country, Exxon makes billions in profit PER MONTH, we do not tax their absurd profits, and we give them $17 billion in tax breaks??? The Senate proposes a bill that would tax the windfall profits of these companies and end their billion-dollar tax breaks and elected officials have the gall to say no?

The Republicans said that raising the taxes on the oil companies will not lower the price of gas at the pump. This may be true, but wouldn’t that be the first step?

The oil companies have us by our throats, and this response by the Republicans only solidifies their grip. We need to start to shake free of these oil companies, there must eventually be a first step. Whats the worst that could happen $5 a gallon? That’s probably going to happen soon anyway!

“Besides the new levies, the bill would also have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.” Does any of this sound bad?

Taxing windfall profits of oil companies, getting rid of their tax breaks (it should be a joke that they even get tax breaks), opening the way for antitrust actions against the OPEC oil cartel, and making energy price gouging a federal crime are things that should already be the norm.

It is absolutely absurd that it costs more for a gallon of gas than some people make an hour, the companies who sell gas are making billions in profit per month, and we give them tax breaks, and the freedom to price gauge.

We have all heard our members of Congress mention the need for alternative energy, but today they blocked a bill that would give $50 billion in tax credits to renewable energy research and development.

So let me get this straight, we give Exxon tax breaks, but not the companies who create renewable energy?

I guess it does make sense; oil companies have more money to contribute to politicians than renewable energy companies do. I wonder why nothing ever gets done?

Other blogs:
http://www.radicalavenue.com/press-babble/

Today while defending her decision to stay in the presidential race Senator Clinton said,

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Nothing like a good ol’ Freudian slip!

The Clinton campaign immediately responded to the remark saying, “She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer.”

This point of reference is simply not valid.

In 1968 the nominating season was far different than today’s. On June 5, the day of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination, there were primaries held in 13 states. It was their equivalent of our ‘Super Tuesday.’

Of course the candidates stayed in the race well into the summer, they had 13 primaries that day!!! By June 3rd of this year every state will have already voted.

Time has nothing to do with this debate; it’s all about numbers. We want Hillary to drop out because it is mathematically impossible for her to win, not because it’s almost June!

Not only was this an extremely insensitive thing to say, but also it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Mrs. Clinton is getting increasingly desperate and she is starting to hurt her public image. Obama is 56 delegates away from clinching the nomination. Clinton’s arguments over the votes in Michigan and Florida not counting are ridiculous and her logic about the subject hurts my brain.

Hillary…..I think it’s time.

This past Saturday I attended a voter registration drive hosted by Barack Obama’s campaign. At 10am the office was packed, with volunteers pouring out the front door. They had to announce that they had ‘too many volunteers,’ and didn’t have enough supplies or places to send everyone!

I was amazed not only by the sheer number of people willing to give up a beautiful Sacramento Saturday to register people to vote and to get out Obama’s message, but mainly by the diversity of the crowd.

Surrounding me were teenage white girls, Muslim men wearing turbans, old white men, middle aged white men, middle aged black women, young black men, old black men and women, and other white college students like myself.

I have before never seen a crowd so diverse all working towards the same goal. Senator Obama’s message is getting across to people from all walks of life, don’t let the hype from Senator Clinton fool you!

Senator McCain is going to have his hands full come November; I wonder what a gathering of McCain volunteers looks like.

Why won’t she just drop out?

There are a number of reasons why Hillary won’t just drop out of the race. Let’s explore a few of them.

First of all, and this is one nobody is talking about, Al Gore has not endorsed anyone yet. We all know that a Gore endorsement would go a long way for either of these candidates. If Al stepped out today and endorsed Hillary publicly what would be the outcome? Would it be enough to get her out of the deepening hole that she is now in?

Probably not

Al Gore is not likely to endorse a candidate who is all but sure to lose the nomination. He wants to put the weight of his name behind his party’s candidate to further boost the candidate’s visibility come general election time. Or does he? Is being friends with the Clinton’s enough to make him endorse Hillary’s sinking candidacy? (NO)

Another reason she could be waiting is to go out on top after a big win in West Virginia next Tuesday, where she has a huge lead in the polls. Clinton is actively campaigning in West Virginia, at the same time I haven’t heard of Obama making any campaign stops out there.

She will use the state of West Virginia to plead her case for the Vice Presidency. She will try to say that Obama cannot win ‘working class voters.’ Which is ludicrous…. (More about this in a future post.)

I have also heard of her campaign coming up with a deal with the Obama campaign to pay off her campaign debt of $20+ million.

The gas tax holiday proposed by opponents Senators Clinton and McCain is nothing more than a campaign gimmick.

Both candidates know that it doesn’t make fiscal sense; they also know that by proposing something like this that the American people will not look into whether or not it makes fiscal sense.

Again, this is an assault on our intelligence as voters. They think that we don’t understand that the suspension of a federal tax would cause long terms economical problems in an economy that is now in recession. The experts that have weighed in on the ‘gas tax holiday’ are even saying that it might not even lower the price of gas for consumers.

I’ll be honest when I first heard John McCain propose to cut gas prices I was happy, but then I realized that it would be a mere band-aid on a bullet wound. Suspending the gas tax for three months will only create more problems. Even if the overall price of gas was lowered by 18 cents per gallon, on a typical 13 gallon fill up that’s a whopping savings of over $2.

Big deal

McCain and Clinton also know that there is no way that the House and Senate could pass the bill in time for the ‘holiday.’ Congress just doesn’t work that fast.

Instead of taking money away from our country’s infrastructure how about we tax the oil companies (over a certain threshold of profit) who despite a ’supply problem’ still manage to make billions of dollars a month in profit ?

Yesterday Exxon announced that it raked in $10.9 billion in profits for the first three months of 2008. 10.9 BILLION DOLLARS in only THREE months? Something is wrong here.

Don’t get me wrong; I have no problem with companies making profits. But Exxon is making obscene profits from the pockets of Americans who are now having trouble buying food to feed their kids.

I’m no economist but my understanding is that a profit occurs when a product is sold for more than it is acquired for. How does Exxon get away with selling gas for $4 a gallon then boast to us about the billions they made off of us without the American public storming their corporate headquarters?

What will happen next?

Will Exxon suddenly decide to sell gas for $2 a gallon and make a meager $5 billion over the next three months? NO! They don’t care what we have to sacrifice to obtain their product. They know they can charge whatever they want and the demand for their product will not lessen…they do it everyday.

This is an insult to our intelligence and the solution must come from Washington. No, not in the form of a suspension of the federal gas tax over the summer, which is only 18 cents a gallon is not even likely to lower the over price of gas. There must be laws put into place that tax oil companies profits. This would be common sense don’t you think?

Why haven’t these taxes been put into place yet? My guess is that the oil companies and their billions of dollars (unfortunately) are very persuasive to the people we elect to make laws.

After last night’s ‘big’ Clinton victory in Pennsylvania it is now impossible for either her or Senator Obama to claim the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination. What does this mean? It means that your vote no longer counts.

As of today Obama has 1,719 delegates, while Clinton has managed 1,586.

The now infamous ‘Super delegates’ will now decide who the Democratic nominee will be. Isn’t that just great? These candidates raise and spend tens of millions of dollars per month, campaign up and down the country to get their message across to us voters, and it doesn’t even matter if we vote because these ‘Super delegates,’ not you, will now decide who the nominee will be.

What the heck is a Super delegate? “Super-delegates are designed to act as a check on ideologically extreme or inexperienced candidates. It also gives power to people who have a vested interested in party policies: elected leaders. ” (source: About.com). Super delegates were a reaction to Democratic nominee George McGovern in 1972. In the general election McGovern won only one state and a mere 37.5% of the popular vote.

This is another example of how voters are not trusted to pick their leaders. It ensures that the same brand of entrenched politics will always be around.

CHANGE we can believe in? Let’s hope so, because old school Democratic fat cats are not likely to vote for someone who wants to change anything.

You can’t escape the constant headlines about baseball and steroids. Just when you thought the Barry Bonds “asterisk” debate was over here comes the media shoving another story about baseball and steroids down our throat.

Roger Clemens… Did he use them or not?

I don’t care!

Back when all these players (which seems like EVERY player) were using these drugs the world of baseball was a different place. The strike just ended and fans were struggling to find a reason to come back and watch a ball game. Players juiced up in a successful attempt to get their fans back in the seats.

Back then these drugs were not illegal! They have recently become illegal substances, and we are treating these athletes as if they used them yesterday.

That aside, my main concern is not whether or not baseball players are using steroids, but why is Congress involved with this?

Are you telling me that the biggest problem America has is figuring out whether or not Roger Clemens used steroids a few years ago? Give me a break!

The ONLY reason why Congress has involved itself in this is to get their faces on TV to make it seem like they are actually doing something. When a person sees their member of Congress on TV they think ‘hey he’s doing something!’ and he gets reelected. It’s (sadly) that simple. Especially with something as high profile as this where these Congressmen get to grill a famous baseball player and make him look stupid.

Unfortunately it is the Congressmen who are looking stupid (and with giant ears).

Go do your job! Try to fix the economy, or just go a stalemate a bill.

Do nothing in private like you always do. Don’t drag us in to watch the paint dry!

I remember my first time gambling when I was 18. My friend and I drove for over an hour out into the into the Northern California mountains. We got to Jackson Rancheria Casino, walked inside and within 3 minutes we were out of money. We looked at each other, muttered some choice words about “all Indian casinos” and drove home with our tails between our legs.

Since then I have been to several Indian casinos throughout California and Oregon. All with similar results, the trips usually last under 30 minutes and I have never won a dime. (When I go to Vegas I never lose by the way). But do I care, NO! It was my choice to lose my lunch money at an Indian casino.

California’s Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 all passed on Super Tuesday ensuring California billions of dollars from Indian gaming. The propositions allow Indian casinos to build more slot machines and also raise the amount of money they have to pay to the California government.

As it is with all ‘sin taxes’ this is a hotly debated issue. Some say that Indian casinos are a good source of income for the state because the money is being spent anyways, while others argue that it is wreck less for the state to rely on money from Indian gaming.

It is not wreckless; not tapping this enormous source of money is wreckless given the budget deficits we now face.

When looking at the Governor’s budget it features huge cuts to public education, among other services. We cannot afford to weaken our children’s educations! We don’t want our future leaders to not be able to add 2 plus 2 (although some would say they already can’t). Arnold doesn’t want to cut education but The Governator’s hands are tied. His only other alternative is making good on his campaign promises of making Indian casinos pay their fair share.

Expanding Indian gaming in California is a great idea. It will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in a year that would pay for services such as public education and medical reimbursements. It would make gambling more visible in the state, but it is still up to the consumer to choose to gamble. Making it more readily available does not mean that you have to go do it.

Maybe next time they will author a proposition that will make the games fairer so I can win some money when I go there!!! Losing 10 hands of blackjack in a row with the dealer showing a 6 makes you wonder.