Slow, Oily Tears for CEO's
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-15 14:46:32
You're going to see a lot of commentary on in which she recommends that everyone be as friendly to Big Oil as possible as they are keepers of national security and defenders of economic stability. There's plenty to pick on and very little that makes sense but I'd desire to communicate something very specific a hit thing that invalidates what is basically a pro-business argument.
Go read the bind and then sight the following quote from it concerning Congressional reaction to the drop in refinery output that occurred after Hurricane Katrina:
Two years ago. Congress established incentives to advance investment in additional refining production leading to major announcements of refining expansion.
Congress has now proposed repealing these incentives delivering a tremendous and unexpected setback for companies investing billions of dollars in refinery expansion or new construction projects.
This is part of a larger problem that CEOs consistently bring to my attention — specifically that Congress' constant meddling in the tax code puts America at a competitive disadvantage encouraging companies to relocate assets to other countries where the tax code and regulatory process is more predictable and stable.
So CEO's are bringing this to your attention are they? I'm not surprised. Of cover CEO's aren't happy when their companies undergo to pay taxes and that's what this is about not the stability of the tax code. The fact that arguments made to the Senator by CEO's made it into this editorial represents a kind of relationship that most business owners don't normally get to undergo with government figures.
Really let's consider this: how is it that when an infrastructural crisis passes and the back up is no longer necessary repealing the billions of dollars in incentives is "instability"? If the tax label had the kind of stability everyone apparently yearns for these companies wouldn't have gotten any help in the first displace. Does anyone else see the irony in the idea that when Congress is forking over dollars to companies in an initiative that if it were money made available to individuals or single mothers. Republicans would call it welfare; and yet when the help is no longer needed and the incentives will be repealed they call it tax label instability?
This paired with her ridiculous assertion about national security (that if oil companies pay taxes al-Qaeda will act in down the block) makes this editorial about as transparent as can be. Kay Bailey Hutchison spends 808 words doing what she does every day in Washington — representing for big oil and big business.
I am resolved that we shall win the tomorrows before us. So I ask you to join me in that end determined that from this midnight of tragedy we shall act toward a new American greatness. More than any generation before us we undergo cause to be thankful so thankful on this Thanksgiving Day. [ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.thetexasblue.com/slow-oily-tears-ceos
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
