“How Obama and the Democrats will Destroy the U.S. Economy” by Alan Caruba at:
By: J. D. Longstreet
You know, every now and then, every American ought to read the US Constitution from beginning to end. I’d wager that if we did, we would not be living in such a screwed-up country as we have today.
One of the things I have learned, over my better than 6 and a half decades on this earth, is that the fellows who wrote the Constitution were quite likely the smartest, most intelligent, men on the entire planet at that time… and… without a doubt… would rank at the top of the intelligentsia today!
Funny thing is that back in the 18th century, folks had a tendency to say what they meant and mean what they say. They had never heard of political correctness, so… they called “a spade a spade”. When they applied pen to paper, to write their thoughts, they didn’t hem and haw about… they wrote down those words, which illustrated, exactly, their thoughts and their intentions.
Now, here’s the thing: When a person, of even average intelligence today, takes it upon himself, or herself, to read the US Constitution… as those Founding Fathers wrote it… they understand it! It’s as clear as a bell.
Now the question: Why, then, do we find it so inconvenient today? Yes, the US Constitution is inconvenient. To the power brokers in the US, the Constitution is a roadblock. It is continually getting in the way. And that is where the US Supreme Court comes in.
When an American turns to the Constitution, to learn the duties of the Supreme Court, often he, or she, is surprised at the limits on the Court. More surprising, still, is the mantel of powers the Court has assumed which the Constitution does not grant the Court!
The national powerbrokers learned, long ago that a Supreme Court molded in their likeness, could extend THEIR powers simply by INTERPRETING the Constitution in a manner which would benefit them. To arrive at that beneficial arrangement, the powerbrokers had to see that they determined the make-up of the court… that only those nominees to the Court who favored their biases could be allowed on the court. That set off a continuing battle between the two sides of the American Political Spectrum, which is near a fever pitch today.
A fairly intelligent high school student can interpret the Constitution. It is that clearly written. Yet, today we require a court of nine persons made up of scholars of the law… even though the Constitution does not require one to be a lawyer to serve on the Supreme Court! Did you know that?
Let me give you an example of how simple the Constitution is to interpret: Article One, section 8 of the Constitution declares that the District of Columbia shall be no larger than ten square miles. Got that? Ok, then why, today, is the District of Columbia 98.25 square miles? Huh? Oh, you see the constitution was inconvenient when it came to that ten square mile law.
The point in all this rambling is… you really ought to acquaint yourself with the US Constitution. When you do, you are going to marvel at how far from the Constitution the US has strayed.
May we suggest that you set out to familiarize yourself with the Constitution while you can? Already, our government is in talks with Mexico and Canada to merge the three countries into a single entity patterned after the European Union. Once that happens, there is a better than even chance the US Constitution will become subject to whatever passes as a constitution for the North American Union.
By:J. D. Longstreet
Turning Boom into Bust
By Alan Caruba
Energy is called “the master resource” because every other aspect of life operates off of it. Nations that are rich in energy resources such as oil, natural gas, and coal, grow wealthy.
There is also something called “the curse of oil” because, if the price per barrel drops, the fate of some nations goes with it. This is the case, for example, of the former Soviet Russia whose government collapsed when it could no longer secure hard currency when oil and gas prices fell. Venezuela is an economic basket case these days, having nationalized oil and most of its financial and business sectors.
The history of nationalized oil and gas-rich nations is that they tend not to invest in their energy industries. They do not engage in sufficient exploration. They do not expand their capacity to extract their natural resources or to refine it. We have seen otherwise oil-rich nations like Mexico encounter financial tremors as in the 1990s when the Clinton administration had to loan Mexico billions to keep it functioning.
America has adopted anti-energy policies because of incessant environmental propaganda about “dirty” coal, out of the fear of nuclear power, and the refusal to permit exploration of 85% of the continental shelf and, of course, Alaska’s ANWR area, a tiny fraction of that State’s landmass.
If Congress imposes a windfall profits tax on the American oil industry, it will quite simply wreck the economy. As my friend, Seldon B. Graham, Jr., a longtime oil industry attorney as well as a petroleum engineer, points out, “”President Jimmy Carter started the ethanol subsidy on November 9, 1978 and signed the oil windfall profits tax on April 2, 1980.”
In effect, Carter put in motion an anti-oil policy that has existed for over three decades. Why is that a bad thing? The ethanol policy has severely disrupted the price of food worldwide as corn is diverted into fuel. The justification for this is “energy independence” from the purchase of foreign oil, but U.S.-produced oil has always been cheaper than imported oil.
If, however, the government creates conditions under which it is simply too risky, too expensive or prohibited to explore for more oil reserves, obviously oil production declines. There has been a 59% decline in U.S. oil production since 1980, the year the windfall profits tax was imposed. It was later repealed, but U.S. oil companies have a responsibility to their investors to act prudently and that has driven them to explore for oil outside of the U.S. or, to put it another way, to find foreign oil.
When you add in the idiotic ethanol mandates, you compound the problem. Graham points out that, “After thirty years, U.S. ethanol production was only able to produce less than 3% of our oil demand last year.” Moreover, “ethanol cost taxpayers $3.3 billion in subsidies in 2007.” Environmental claims that ethanol is cleaner than oil are false. Not only do you get less energy and poor mileage when ethanol is blended with gasoline, it actually emits more carbon dioxide per mile. “It is absolutely impossible for ethanol to replace foreign oil,” says Graham.
The justification for a windfall profits tax on oil companies ignores, for example, that ExxonMobil, just one of the few remaining oil companies operating in the U.S., pays more than $100 billion in taxes on the average.
Less than 11% of ExxonMobil’s profits come from marketing and refining in the United States and the company recently announced it was spinning off its retail outlets. Yes, it made great profits in recent years, but it also had enormous, risk-filled expenses.
Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies will give them cause to consider moving their corporate headquarters to other more congenial nations. The city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates has been engaged in a vast office building effort, perhaps anticipating the movement of corporate headquarters.
Americans greeted the expiration of the ban on offshore exploration and drilling with the expectation that American oil would begin to flow and thus lower their costs for this vital national asset. That will not happen if the President or a Democrat controlled Congress reinstates the ban and/or imposes a windfall profits tax.
The city of Houston has been enjoying a boom due to the increase in the cost of a barrel of oil. Even at $80 dollars a barrel, it is enough to have created “its strongest resurgence in more than 20 years” according to a 2007 New York Times article about Houston. “Some energy companies are expanding and putting up new buildings.” Others, like Schlumberger among the hundreds of service providers to the energy industry have established their headquarters in Houston.
Houston is home to the headquarters of ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and foreign owned companies like Citgo, BP and Royal Dutch Shell also maintain corporate offices there.
About half of Houston’s jobs, an estimated 1.1 million positions, are tied to the energy industry. The impact of a windfall profits tax would prove devastating to Houston.
Destroying the oil industry in America, a process that has been in place since the Carter administration, has left the nation vulnerable to foreign sources. The U.S. already imports some 70% of its oil. There has been a significant decline in the exploration and development of national reserves.
Unleashing the energy industries in America could dramatically improve our present financial troubles. Congress, having turned boom into bust, has a historical opportunity to reverse that trend.
Editor’s Note: “Why Your Gasoline Prices Are High” by Seldon B. Graham ($10.95) is available from Amazon.com.
© Alan Caruba, November 2008