Hastert takes oil industry to task over large profits

[leekohler]

Well, well, well- the devil is wearing ice skates. Either that, or the heat is on these guys.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-051105energy,1,1851037.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[leekohler]

Hmm... well I guess it's most likely just for show, but hey- maybe they're starting to get the message.

[pseudobrit]

Hmm... well I guess it's most likely just for show

Yup. Otherwise they'd be discussing increased taxation and/or repeal of the gov't subsidies they just passed in the energy bill.

This is just making it look like they care. I welcome $150/bbl oil and $10 gasoline. Then maybe they'll have to do something substantial.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I can't but help to feel that the rapid drop (comparatively) in gas prices in the weeks just before the elections, to be a little suspicious.

[zimv20]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-051105energy,1,1851037.story?coll=chi-news-hed
side note: since these articles sometimes go offline, i've taken to pasting the first few paragraphs of the article.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The other side of the coin is that with Bush's approval ratings in the tank, and by some pundits comments - the rest of the RNC. It is little wonder that the Republicans are trying to act more like Democrats, and the Democrats trying to act more like Republicans.

It will be interesting to see the results of the election on Wednesday.

[leekohler]

side note: since these articles sometimes go offline, i've taken to pasting the first few paragraphs of the article.

Thanks zim.

[mactastic]

What an affront to the nation and this grand institution! Nothing but a political stunt, designed to take the heat off a party with no principles and no convictions. I've never had such a slap in the face.

Oh wait, it's a GOP stunt. Never mind, that's completely different. Everything's fine!

I wonder if Hastert consulted with the opposition before calling for these hearings?
:p

[scem0]

Republicans' display of sympathy toward consumers, and outrage at the oil companies, is hardly genuine, Democrats say.

"Oil and gas companies give overwhelmingly to Republicans," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), claiming that the GOP's energy legislation was never designed to help lower prices at the pump. "And they gave $14 billion in taxpayer subsidies to companies that are making historic, record profits."

That's pretty much how I feel :cool:.

_Emerson

[tristan]

One point of note - those profits are earned worldwide, not just in the US. I don't blame the oil companies, they're just the logical consequence of all of the US policies promoting oil. The oil industry is also an oligopoly at this point.

[solvs]

It's probably all for show... but of the neocons, Hastert is one of the less horrible.

[solvs]

Or not (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/05/house-speaker-rep-dennis_n_10175.html).

[mactastic]

I wasn't gonna bust your bubble, but Hastert is no saint, not even when compared to other neo-cons. Remember, Hastert was DeLay's enabler when it came to arm-twisting in the House.

[solvs]

I wasn't gonna bust your bubble, but Hastert is no saint, not even when compared to other neo-cons. Remember, Hastert was DeLay's enabler when it came to arm-twisting in the House.
Yeah, that's what I get for having hope.

[tristan]

I've been reading about the hearings today. The oil company's explanation is that they raised prices to reduce demand right after Katrina because there was a general lack of supply. This explanation might make sense in Loisiana and Mississippi, but I don't think it works nationwide because there are lots of different types of fuels.

I think that the explanation could be very important because there are specific laws against price-gouging in the event of a disaster. However, I haven't read anything about Exxon being charged with price-gouging, but just the possibility of the "windfall profits tax".

In general, I'd be against such a tax, but if Exxon was price-gouging (which seems so) and the government can't nail them on that, I think a punitive tax would be the way to go.

[zimv20]

link (http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/09/news/economy/oil_hearing/?cnn=yes)


Even before the remarks got started, Democrats and Republicans debated whether the executives should have to swear to tell the truth before the panel.

Alaska Republican Stevens, head of the Senate Commerce Committee, rejected calls by some Democrats to have the executives sworn in, saying the law already required them to tell the truth.

Hawaii's Inouye, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the CEOs should want to testify under oath.

"If I were a witness I would prefer to be sworn in so the public knows what I was about to say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," he said. "If I were a witness I would demand to take the oath."

[mactastic]

Aww, come here major campaign contributors... Let me coddle you through these hearings so you don't have to have your pictures taken with your hands in the air taking the oath. :rolleyes:

[solvs]

If it's already illegal to lie at these things, why not just get yourself sworn in as a show of faith? Do the neocons want people to hate them? Seriously, between this and Cheney's stance on torture, I'm beginning to wonder. Are the oil executives also oblivious the fact that people hate them?

[tristan]

There's one group of people who love oil company execs - the oil company stockholders. Lots of industries are unpopular, tobacco, law, etc, but that doesn't give the government the right to grab their profits. But what the government does have the right to do is regulate the industry and promote competition. Congress should drop this "windfall tax" and initiate a price-gouging and collusion investigation.

[solvs]

Congress should drop this "windfall tax" and initiate a price-gouging and collusion investigation.
Bingo. The "tax" (or fine) is just going to give them an excuse to raise prices again. Look at Halliburton.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Aww, come here major campaign contributors... Let me coddle you through these hearings so you don't have to have your pictures taken with your hands in the air taking the oath. :rolleyes:

More the reason that we first vote out bastards like Stevens and others that have their hands so deep in to the pockets with the money, it looks a like a porn movie.

Then we make it so that we have meaningful campaign reform. I say no more than $1000 a year per a registered voter to any political party, PAC, or person in total. Companies would be limited to $500 per a year to any political party or PAC in total per a year. And only $500 per a candidate/incumbant during an election year.