by Frank James
Beating up on the oil companies approached a sport over the summer, particularly for Democrats, when oil prices rose to $140 a barrel and gas prices at the pump topped out over $4 a gallon.
But as oil prices fell as a global recession began to take hold, reducing demand for petroleum, the oil companies seemed to become less villainous for Democrats including Sen. Barack Obama who, among other things, had called for a windfall-profits tax.
Given that background, it will be interesting to see if ExxonMobil's announcement today of record third-quarter profits gets the Democtats' idea of a windfalls-profits tax back on the front burner. The company reported record net income of $14.83 billion for the third quarter which was up 58 percent higher that the comparable year-ago quarter.
For Democrats, it's tricky. It was obviously a winning populist idea when gas prices were going up. But with oil and gasoline prices falling, the public has received tremendous relief already so the energy rebate Obama promised consumers is less necessary.
Also, flogging the windfall-profits tax idea could play into efforts by Sen. John McCain's campaign to portray Obama as a tax-and-spender, an argument which has some traction with many voters.
Given all that, it's likely Democrats won't make the same kind of big deal today of ExxonMobil's record profit as they would have several months ago.
Comments
It might generate that feeling, but one for sure that will be generated is the fact that of all the companies that DOES NOT NEED A TAX BREAK is Exxonmobil.
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | October 30, 2008 11:26 AM
It never should have left the front burner, but the pundits didn't find it, as glamorous as Governot Palin's Nieman-Marcus outfits !! Unbridled greed should never be overlooked, condoned, encouraged and certainly not, go untaxed !! The Oil Corps should fire all of their tax specialists, tax accountants and tax lawyers and pay their fair share of taxes and I mean, actually pay them. I bet if they fired all of the " specialists " and payed their taxes, they would probably have a surplus !! Just look at the devastation their, and the other Corps', greed has perpetrated against the citizens of America. I will not recite the litany of disasters that the Bush-McCain Republicans are responsible for, suffice it to say, get them out of Office, before they do some permanent damage !!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | October 30, 2008 11:34 AM
BHO promised me a windfall rebate! I already spent that money. He bought my absentee vote fair and square. Where's my re-distribution?
Posted by: mittforprez | October 30, 2008 12:26 PM
Hey, but Michele Bachmann thinks the price of oil is linked if we may drill more in the future:
http://blog.thehill.com/2008/10/30/200-gaswhat-a-relief-rep-michele-bachmann/#more-7584
Scary that this is the logic that drives energy policy in Washington.
Posted by: Karl | October 30, 2008 1:33 PM
We're going to give money to companies that mismanage themselves to the brink of bankruptcy, but punish ones that are profitable. That's fantastic. What country is this?
This “excessive profits” rhetoric is designed to prey on the stupid. A for-profit corporation is designed for one purpose - to maximize shareholder profits under the law. Officers and directors can be personally liable to shareholders if they act contrary to that goal. If Exxon broke antitrust or any other laws in making their huge profits, then charge them. If all people are doing is whining about large profits, then your problem is with the corporate form, not an individual company or industry. Yelling at a for profit company for making money makes about as much sense as yelling at a Golden Retriever for having fur.
Further, what do you think Exxon would do in the face of an increased tax? They will treat it as an expense and pass it along to the consumer. Let's give ourselves a gas tax. Fantastic.
Finally, I know this “stick it to big oil” rhetoric plays well as a populist message, but is hitting Exxon or any other large company in the pocket book really a good idea? My feeling is that the same people calling for this tax will be scratching their head when they read in the paper "Exxon lays off 5K workers". Do you really think Exxon wouldn't axe Joe Sixpack to keep up profit levels?
Posted by: Herbie H. | October 30, 2008 5:32 PM
Shorter version of Herbies post: Bow to your corporate masters! Do not dare question them! This is Government of the corporation, by the corporation for the corporation.
Posted by: Translator | October 30, 2008 7:51 PM
Thank you Herbie. Another sensible voice crying out in the liberal wilderness. It's so hard to find anything but nonsense on these lefty sites. As for Karl, what r u trying to say? That supply is irrelevant in terms of the price of oil? Are you of the liberal belief that W sets oil prices by decree to benefit his stock portfolio? Michele Bachman is referring to expanding our domestic drilling and encouraging alternative fuel development. This is "scary" to you? Take comfort, then, that BHO promises to "look at offshore drilling." That will send a shiver down the spine of both Chris Matthews and OPEC. Hide out, Karl, global warming is going to get you. Rove and Bush will unleash their hurricane maker machine on you.
Posted by: mittforprez | October 30, 2008 8:06 PM
Remember when oil went from $70/barrel to $140/barrel, all you libs saif this was nothing but greed? Now that oil has gone from $140/barrel to $70/barrel, would you call this nothing but altruism?
Some facts:
XOM has had net income of $37.4 billion for the first nine months of 2008 and has paid taxes of $94.2 billion for the same period - which included $31.1 billion of income taxes. Once again, I have to repeat this to you socialists every quarter, the gov't which takes no risks, makes mor money on XOM than do the shareholders, who take all the risk.
Posted by: Terry | October 30, 2008 8:15 PM
You won't get "oil company bashing" from me. These are true American hero's that allow us to continue to eat. We need more great men like these oil CEO's. OK, they need to do some clean up in South America and other places and say they are sorry. But let's allow the world to continue to eat. Remember, crude oil now means food.
Posted by: Ray The Money Man | November 15, 2008 12:56 PM