Profits And People Go Together

At the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, the senator from New York said, “The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund.”

Still planning to vote for her? Think of what she is saying.

“I want to take those profits.”

Boy oh boy. After living down her aborted plan to nationalize 14 percent of the nation’s economy she doesn’t seem to have learned anything.

What happened to private property? What happened to limited government?

“I want to put them in an alternative energy fund.”

There’s a lot of malarkey talked about alternative energy. So far, it is expensive energy favored by, and likely to benefit, only liberals and farmers. From a practical point of view, just to keep them off our backs, it seems reasonable to give liberals some play money so they can build wind farms in the high Sierras—but not in sight of Ted Kennedy’s compound in Hyannisport. And why not pay some farmers to grow switchgrass on the High Plains?

But to talk of taking oil company profits and putting them in an alternative energy fund—well, that strips the veil of the alternative energy game. It reveals it for what it is: Yet another Democratic plan for patronage, privilege, and subsidies.

But let’s get back to ExxonMobil. As Kudlow points out, ExxonMobil made $377 billion in sales; paid taxes of $100 billion; reported profits of $40 billion.

So, for Hillary Clinton, presumably, taxes of 25 percent of sales isn’t enough.

Still planning to vote for Hillary Clinton?

Let’s get this straight. A corporation that makes a profit is a corporation that is using resources wisely. A corporation that reports a loss is a corporation that is wasting valuable natural and human resources.

Hillary Clinton wants to turn ExxonMobil’s profit into a loss.

Sphere: Related Content |

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com. His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.