Current Events - March 19, 2013

Big, Evil Oil Companies Pay Most in Taxes

It's no surprise liberals love taxes. The new Democratic Senate budget calls for $1 trillion in tax increases in order to offset $1 trillion in new spending. But liberals who constantly demonize big oil are biting the hand that feeds and fulfills their big govenrment spending dreams. It turns out, big oil companies like Exxon Mobile and Chevron pay the most in taxes out of any other company. 

1. ExxonMobil
• Income tax expense: $31.05 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $78.73 billion
• Revenue: $428.38 billion
•1-year share price change: 6.56%
• Industry: Oil and gas

Large multinational oil companies have been among the largest payers of corporate federal taxes for years. Exxon's (XOM) income tax amount was approximately the same in 2011 as it was in 2012 — $31 billion. A simple reason for Exxon's position at the top of the tax paying list is its size. It vies with Wal-Mart each year for the spot as the publicly traded U.S. company with the greatest revenue. Exxon's revenue has averaged more than $400 billion a year from 2007 to 2012. Part of Exxon's success is tied to the price of crude oil. A barrel of WTI crude was worth $35 in 2003. The price reached $60 in 2006 and rarely dropped below it thereafter. It rose above $100 in 2008 and has occasionally topped that price since then. Whether Exxon can stay atop both the tax and revenue list much longer depends on several factors, not the least of which are new sources of energy led by solar, wind and particularly shale-based fossil fuels. One benefit Exxon has that may allow it to keep the top position as America's largest company is its role as the number one producer of natural gas.

2. Chevron
• Income tax expense: $20.00 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $46.33 billion
• Revenue: $222.58 billion
• 1-year share price change: 9.52%
• Industry: Oil and gas

It is somewhat unfair to say that Chevron (CVX) is a more modest sized version of Exxon, but in many cases it is. Chevron is the third largest public company in the U.S. based on sales, just above another energy multinational, ConocoPhillips, which was recently broken into two parts. Chevron has paid more than $10 billion a year in taxes in every year except one since 2005. And its revenue since the same year has only once dropped below $200 billion during that time. Like other large energy companies, it has added liquid natural gas to its reserve base, because natural gas currently accounts for 23% of the world's energy consumption. One challenge Chevron faces as it moves forward is the difficulty of finding new oil fields. This will require Chevron to make greater and greater efforts at deepwater drilling and oil sands production. Chevron is sanguine about its long-term prospects; it expects to increase production 20% by 2017.

As you can imagine, bankrupt companies like Solyndra don't pay much in taxes.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/19/big-evil-oil-companies-pay-most-in-taxes-n1538640 

PK'S NOTE: Already here in the US, they are not just taxing income, with Obamacare they're taxing our assets, what we have. No difference from taxing a bank account like what's happening in Cyprus. 

Cavuto: This Whole Confiscation of Funds Has Already Happened in America

Yesterday we learned Cyprus has closed its banks as it prepares to take 10 percent out of private bank accounts to bail itself out of bad economic decisions. Fox News host and business expert Neil Cavuto is warning this isn't simply a concept in some small, far away country, but something that has already happened in America through ObamaCare's 3.8 percent tax on home sales. And yes, it can get worse.

"Taxing you not on what you make but what you have."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/19/cavuto-this-whole-confiscation-of-funds-has-already-happened-in-america-n1538611

Obama Reveals Plan to Get U.S. Cars Off Oil…Using Tax-Payer Subsidized Firm That Has Yet To Produce a Battery

President Obama last week at the Department Of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory at the University of Chicago outlined his $2 billion plan to get U.S. vehicles off of oil.

Argonne, you may recall, has been awarded more than $200 million by the U.S. government since 2009.

But here’s something interesting: Argonne National Laboratory actually partnered with LG Chem Michigan Inc. in 2011 to design electric vehicle batteries, the Washington Free Beacon notes.

Remember LG Chem Michigan?

That’s the tax-payer subsidized battery maker that has not produced or sold a single battery since being awarded a $150 million federal grant in 2009, according to a recent report from the Energy Department’s Inspector General.

“LG Chem was supposed to use Argonne’s design to produce the Volt batteries in its Holland plant once construction was finished,” the Washington Examiners’ Michal Conger notes. “But according to a recent Inspector General report, the company’s employees have been too busy playing video games to produce any batteries, despite spending $142 million”.

In fact, as noted elsewhere on TheBlaze, LG Chem Michigan employees were dying for work and would go out to volunteer around Holland, Mich., in order to have something to do.

“Through interviews with LG Chem Michigan management and other staff, we confirmed that employees spent time volunteering at local non-profit organizations, playing games and watching movies during regular working hours,” the IG report said.

“Even though the facility had produced a large number of test cells, the plant had yet to manufacture battery cells that could be used in electric vehicles sold to the public,” the report added.

So, yes, the president’s $2 billion plan to get U.S. vehicles off oil was delivered at a tax-payer subsidized “green” energy firm that in 2011 designed batteries for another tax-payer subsidized “green” energy firm that has yet to produce a single electric car battery.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/obama-reveals-plan-to-get-u-s-cars-off-oil-using-tax-payer-subsidized-firm-that-has-yet-to-produce-a-battery/

Why Is Retail Giant Target Trying to Scan Your Driver’s License for This Seemingly Simple Purchase?

A person appearing younger than 18 years old might expect to be carded for age-restricted items like tobacco purchases. Americans might even be accustomed to having to produce their driver’s license or some form of government-issued I.D. to purchase decongestants or other medications containing pseudoephedrine. But what about Nicotine patches? And why is only one popular retailer asking for more than just your I.D. when you’re trying to buy them?

A person named Rodney was doing neither of these things. Still, when he was at Target purchasing nicotine patches, the store clerk asked to scan his I.D., giving Rodney pause and eventually leading him to take his business elsewhere.

According to the Consumerist, he was purchasing nicotine patches for his son. Although the FDA sets 18 as the minimum age to purchase smoking cessation products, the fact that he claims to be a father (and later states his age at 57) suggests this restriction would not be a problem.

In a letter to the Consumerist, Rodney shared details of what happened:

My son, who is trying cast off the vile tobacco habit, called to ask me to pick up a box of nicotine patches that he is using to eases his craving. Since I would do nearly anything to help him quit smoking I tossed a box of the patches in my shopping cart.

At the checkout, the nice lady (really!) asked me for my driver’s license. Assuming that she wanted to verify my age (Wow – being carded at 57) I showed it to her. She then said that she needed to scan the stripe. I declined and told her that I’ve proven my identity and my age and I would prefer to NOT have them record my details.

[...]

She then called over a manager who appeared to have gotten her makeup tips from RuPaul to override the register by inputting my date of birth. The manager then informed me that it was the law to scan my license. Before I could complete my rebuttal, she changed her story that it was store policy whereupon she snatched up the box of patches and left the checkout. The clerk was obviously horrified and mouthed an “I’m sorry” to me. I simply smiled and told her that Target could keep everything else, too.

This isn’t the first account where such an instance has happened at Target over nicotine patches either.

Rodney went on to explain that when he purchased the patches at a Wal-Mart afterward, the cashier simply had to verify the purchaser was 18 years or older (Rodney wasn’t carded but said his gray hair might have been a clue).

Ultimately, Rodney said that he “[didn't] want to risk winding up on some database of smokers.”

“I have no way of knowing how this could be used against me during a health insurance claim or background investigation.”

As Rodney pointed out, Target has been in the spotlight recently for its extensive data mining abilities to direct marketing to its customers, which could be exactly why the store wanted to scan his I.D. in the first place. An article in the New York Times by Charles Duhigg, highlighting a portion of his book “The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and in Business,” showed how Target is able to tell if a woman is pregnant, based on its purchase-tracking capabilities, before even she knows. Duhigg wrote:

For decades, Target has collected vast amounts of data on every person who regularly walks into one of its stores. Whenever possible, Target assigns each shopper a unique code — known internally as the Guest ID number — that keeps tabs on everything they buy. “If you use a credit card or a coupon, or fill out a survey, or mail in a refund, or call the customer help line, or open an e-mail we’ve sent you or visit our Web site, we’ll record it and link it to your Guest ID,” Pole said. “We want to know everything we can.”

This could be the case. We tried going through the process of purchasing a smoking cessation product online through Target. Although the company did have us confirm by clicking a button that we were over the age of 18, it would be able to collect any information it wanted of us (address, etc.) based on the shipping and billing information we would input to complete the transaction.

There is also the potential that scanning of the I.D. is required based on the fact that nicotine is an age-restricted product. Some stores in states where I.D.s are scannable use them to confirm age instead of typing in the birth date manually. This is not to say that a store would not have the option to type in the birth date manually though.

Rodney says his stand against providing his I.D. might have been “pig-headed,” but Consumerist pointed out that his concerns might not be too far off:

The Wall Street Journal reported not long ago that health insurers are quietly buying spending data on their customers, the same information that marketers collect, in order to look at spending habits and make predictions of future health care costs for employers.

There has also been concern of grocery store loyalty cards being used to glean similar information as well.

TheBlaze has contacted Target for comment regarding this practice. We will update this post if and when we receive a response clarifying their position.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/why-does-target-require-a-scan-of-your-drivers-license-to-buy-nicotine-patches/ 

Dad: This Picture of My Son Holding a Gun Triggered a Visit from NJ Police, Family Services

Did this photograph spark a police action that tried to enter a New Jersey home without a warrant? That’s the story being told on a website dedicated to “Open Carry” in the state of Delaware. The title of the story, “The fight has officially been brought to my front door.”

Image: Delaware Open Carry

The young man in the photo is the 11-yr-old son of Shawn Moore. The gun is a .22 rifle, a copy of the AR-15, but a 22 caliber. The photo was posted on Facebook by a proud father. That Facebook posting apparently triggered an anonymous call to New Jersey’s Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). On Friday night, March 15th, two representatives from the state’s social services office (along with four local police officers) came to the Moore home and demanded to see the family’s firearms.

According to Moore’s lawyer, Evan Nappen (an attorney with considerable expertise in NJ’s very strict gun laws), the situation was “outrageous.”

Here’s what Moore alleges on the Delaware open carry forum:

• NJ’s Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) came to his home, accompanied by police officers. They claimed to be responding to a call about a photo of a young boy holding a firearm. (photo above)
• Without a search warrant, DYFS demanded entry into Moore’s home and access to all of his firearms. Moore was not initially there, but his wife called him.
• With his lawyer listening to the exchange on the phone with police and DFYS, Moore denied entry to his home and access to his safe where he stores his guns.
• When Moore requested the name of the DFYS representative, she refused to give it to him.
• After threatening to “take my kids,” the police and Family Services worker left — “empty handed and seeing nothing.”

In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze, Mr. Nappen — the attorney who was listening to the entire incident via Moore’s speaker phone — added more details:

• The DYFS worker repeatedly demanded access to the house and for Moore to open his safe where the firearms were stored. She said that the guns should be catalogued and checked to make certain they were “properly registered.” (NJ does not require registration, it is voluntary.)
• The four police officers acted professionally, they were there at the request of DYFS.
• The worker refused to identify herself. Mr. Moore demanded that she giver her name. She refused and ran away.
• As of Tuesday morning, Mr. Nappen believes that DYFS is still pushing for an inspection, “which is not happening.”

Mr. Nappen also shared few very important facts about this case. For instance, Shawn Moore holds three very significant firearms designations:

• NRA Certified Firearms Instructor – One of the toughest certifications to attain, requiring skills with the weapons as well as teaching.
• NRA Certified Range Safety Instructor
• NJ State Certified Firearms Hunting Instructor

Shawn’s son is also someone who has been certified by the state of New Jersey. In order for a person under the age of 18 to go hunting in New Jersey, they must be accompanied by a parent or adult supervisor, and they must also pass a state firearms hunter safety test. The young Mr. Moore passed the test and his father was NOT his instructor.

TheBlaze first learned about this story via a tip from reader who spotted Shawn Moore’s post on a pro-Second Amendment website. ”ShawnMoore81″ is a member of Delaware Open Carry, an online community dedicated to supporting open-carry in the state of Delaware. His account of the above incident at his home might give any law-abiding gun owner chills.

We present the un-edited post in Mr. Moore’s own words:

Last night I was out with a buddy of mine. I got a text from my wife that the cops and dyfs are at the house and they wanna check out my guns and needed me to open my safe.

I’m instantly on my way. I get in contact with evan Nappen on the way. I explain the situation. I walk in my house and hand the phone to the first cop I see. Then direct all of em outside. Dyfs got a call because of a pic on my son holding a gun. They wanted to look around and check all my guns out, make sure they were all registered. Obviously that didn’t go well because I refused. I had Nappen on speaker phone the entire time so they had to deal with both of us. They kept trying to pressure me to open my safe. They had no warrant, no charges, nothing. I didn’t budge. I was told I was being “unreasonable” and that I was acting suspicious because I wouldn’t open my safe. Told me they were gonna get a search warrant. Told em go ahead. Nappen (my lawyer) asked me for the dyfs workers name. she wouldnt give it. i asked for credentials and she wouldnt show em. i tried to take a pic of her and she turned around real fast and walked away. After a while of them threatening to take my kids, get warrants and intimidation they left. Empty handed and seeing nothing.

People it can happen that fast. Most people wouldn’t have stood up to them like I did.

A picture of the police taken by Shawn Moore and posted on Deloc.org.

Mr. Moore also took photographs of the incident. One shows four police officers (wearing bullet-proof vests) from the Carneys Point, NJ police department were on the scene Saturday night. TheBlaze contacted Chief Robert DiGregorio of the Carneys Point PD to get the department’s account of what happened. The chief did not answer or calls or return our messages.

As you might imagine, the very tight community of Second Amendment supporters has posted this story on Facebook pages and various pro-gun websites. TheBlaze reached out to Mr. Moore in hopes of confirming all of the details he shared as well as asking why he thinks DYFS was called, and where the story stands now.

Moore has not spoken with us, but as mentioned we talked with his attorney and he has answered a few of our questions via e-mail. Late Monday night he wrote to TheBlaze saying, “I have dyfs still insisting to see the inside of my safe.”

Does the DYFS have a right to look inside Moore’s safe? Can they demand that he show his firearms to them? The agency and local law enforcement may be looking to see if Moore violated New Jersey’s Code of Criminal Justice, specifically, 2C:58-6.1 Possession of firearms by minors; exceptions.

b.No person under the age of 18 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a  firearm except as provided under paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) of this subsection; and, unless authorized in connection with the performance of official duties under the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-6, no person under the age of 21 years shall possess, carry, fire or use a handgunexcept under the following circumstances:

(1)In the actual presence or under the direct supervision of his father, mother or guardian, or some other person who holds a permit to carry a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, as the case may be;  or

(2)For the purpose of military drill under the auspices of a legally recognized military organization and under competent supervision;  or

(3)For the purpose of competition or target practice in and upon a firing range approved by the governing body of the municipality in which the range is located or the National Rifle Association and which is under competent supervision at the time of such supervision or target practice or instruction and training at any location; or

(4)For the purpose of hunting during the regularly designated hunting season, provided that he possesses a valid hunting license and has successfully completed a hunter’s safety course taught by a qualified instructor or conservation officer and possesses a certificate indicating the successful completion of such a course.

c. A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.  For purposes of this section the fact that the act would not constitute a crime if committed by an adult shall not be deemed to prohibit or require waiver of family court jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.2C:4-11 or to preclude a finding of delinquency under the “New Jersey Code of Juvenile Justice,” P.L.1982, c.77 (C.2A:4A-20 et seq.), P.L.1982, c.79 (C.2A:4A-60 et seq.), P.L.1982, c.80 (C.2A:4A-76 et seq.) and P.L.1982, c.81 (C.2A:4A-70 et seq.).

TheBlaze reached out to DYFS to confirm Moore’s account of the incident. The local office that covered the Carneys Point, NJ, area where Shawn Moore and his family live, would not respond to any questions from us. In fact, after our call was transferred to a “supervisor” named Lynette we were directed to the Trenton offices. When we requested a correct spelling of Lynette’s last name, she started to spell it and then suddenly stopped, saying, “I’m not comfortable giving you my name.” When we asked for a phone number to the Trenton office, Lynette told us “Google it. Goodbye.”

Calls to the Trenton office of DYFS (now known as “The Division of Child Protection and Permanency”) have not yet been returned.

 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/

Your money, your property

So, you decide to do a little shopping downtown and you pull into a privately owned parking garage. While your car is there, the city decides to levy a one time "parkers tax" on your property and breaks into your car in order to appropriate your sound system.

Now substitute a bank for the parking garage and your hard earned money for the sound system and you can understand how the Cyrpiot people might be feeling about now.

To whom does your money belong? You might be surprised at the answer if you ask officials at the EU or some liberal Democrats here in the states. In fact, one of the dividing lines between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe your money belongs to the government, and it is government that decides how much of it you can keep. Conservatives believe that your money is your property and that you decide how much to give to government.

It's a state of mind that's at issue more than a reflection of reality. In truth, we elect representatives who ostensibly do our bidding and if we get mad at them for levying taxes that are too high, in theory, we can boot them out of office.

Of course, it never works that way. Which means that the liberal interpretation that money is not your property and that government can do pretty much whatever it wants with it - including skimming your bank deposits - is closer to reality than the conservative view.

Why is this so? Government can't swoop in and take your car? Or maybe some liberals believe it can. Why is money different than anything else you own?

The communitarian mindset that is motivating today's liberal Democrats is destroying the idea of private property and bringing us closer to a tyranny that the Founders were very much familiar with. Forget due process when it involves your money. You work for all Americans, don't you know that? And if you're an entrepreneur, you didn't build that business - everyone helped. Ergo, your money is not really "yours" in the sense that you have title and ownership of it. Any money you have comes to you via the beneficence of government and therefore, government gets to decide how much you can keep and even what you can do with it.

From "The Right to Private Property" published by the Hoover Institution:

The institution of the right to private property is perhaps the single most important condition for a society in which freedom, including free trade, is to flourish. There is no mystery about why Karl Marx put the abolition of private property at the top of his list of revolutionary changes leading to his communist utopia. Under communism we all are deemed to be one. Privacy has no place in a system that holds, as Marx proclaimed, that "the human essence is the true collectivity of man." Privacy is ruled out by definition. Stealing, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, trespassing, not to mention borrowing, bequeathing, giving, and the like, are precluded where everything is the property of everyone all at once. Rather, nothing would be untoward except the failure to share, to distribute fairly what is needed or to yield to a government mandating such distribution.

However, if we are fundamentally individuals, then communism is not right for us, and the system of private property rights could well be the best system of political economy for human beings.

A libertarian theory of justice must address whether the strong prohibition against any kind of involuntary redistribution of privately owned wealth can be justified.

Once the idea is set that money is not property, the rest falls into place nicely. The Cypriots are learning that lesson today. Is it our turn tomorrow?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/03/your_money_your_property.html#ixzz2O0Xxb0zw

It's Come to This: Hugs Banned at Maryland Schools

Some people say California is the most liberal, progressive state in the country but I beg to differ. Maryland is far worse and its newly implemented ban on hugging and passing out birthday invitations at schools (so people don't get their feelings hurt) has just proved my point.

New rules for visitors to St. Mary’s County public elementary schools ban hugs and homemade food to anyone other than a parent’s own child.
The guidelines, which are now in effect, limit the activities of some volunteers, school officials said, but are needed to ensure a safe environment.
A committee of several parents and principals from elementary schools in St. Mary’s County met four times last fall to review and recommend new best practices for schools to follow.

And yes, Maryland is the same state where a nine-year-old was suspended because his half eaten pop-tart was shaped like a gun.

About a week ago, 7-year-old Josh Welch was suspended from his Maryland school for two days after biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun.
"It was already a rectangle and I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top and it kinda looked like a gun but it wasn't," Welch told Baltimore Fox station WBFF. "All I was trying to do was turn it into a mountain but, it didn't look like a mountain really and it turned out to be a gun kinda."

Not to mention, Maryland is doing everything it can to allow the state to raise kids by keeping parents out of schools.

The new guidelines limit lunchtime and recess visits, ban handing out birthday invitations at school and prohibit visits during the school day by younger siblings.
“We think it’s the right balance between safety and parental involvement,” said Kelly Hall, executive director of elementary schools and Title I.
She said that elementary principals had reported many issues related to school visitors.
“At the same time, parents were expressing some concerns,” Hall said.
Parents should not approach teachers for a conference while visiting, according to the rules. Those meetings should be scheduled ahead of time.
Siblings of students are not allowed to visit the school with the parent during the school day. It was unclear this week if exceptions would be made for student performances where parents and others are invited.

In case you needed another argument for homeschooling, there you have it.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/19/its-come-to-this-hugs-banned-at-maryland-schools-n1538686 

A Real Term Limit

By Thomas Sowell

The main thing wrong with the term limits movement is the “s” at the end of the word “limit.”

What are advocates of term limits trying to accomplish? If they are trying to keep government from being run by career politicians, whose top priority is getting themselves reelected, then term limits on given jobs fail to do that.

When someone reaches the limit of how long one can spend as a county supervisor, then it is just a question of finding another political office to run for, such as a member of the state legislature. And when the limit on terms there is reached, it is time to look around for another political job — perhaps as a mayor or a member of Congress.

Instead of always making reelection in an existing political post the top priority, in the last term in a given office the top priority will be doing things that will make it easier to get elected or appointed to the next political post. But in no term is doing what is right for the people likely to be the top priority.

Those who favor term limits are right to try to stop the same old politicians from staying in the same old offices for decades. But having the same career politicians circulating around in the same set of offices, like musical chairs, is not very different.

In either case, we can expect the same short-sighted policies, looking no further than the next election, and the same cynical arts of deception and log-rolling to get reelected at all costs.

There are undoubtedly some high-minded people who go into politics to serve their community or the nation. But, in the corrupting atmosphere of politics, there are too many who “came to do good and stayed to do well” — especially if they stayed too long.

Recently, California’s Senator Dianne Feinstein gave a graphic demonstration of what can happen when you have been in office too long.

During a discussion of Senator Feinstein’s proposed legislation on gun control, Texas’ freshman Senator Ted Cruz quietly and politely asked “the senior Senator from California” whether she would treat the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment the same way her gun control bill was treating the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms.

Senator Feinstein never addressed that question. Instead, she became testy and told Senator Cruz how long she had been in Congress and how much she knew. Watching her get up on her high horse to put him in his place, recalled the words of Cromwell to Members of Parliament: “You have sat too long for any good that you have been doing lately. … In the name of God, go!”

Those who oppose term limits express fears of having government run by amateurs, rather than by people with long experience in politics. But this country was created by people who were not career politicians, but who put aside their own private careers to serve in office during a critical time.

When President George Washington was told by one of his advisors that an action he planned to take might prevent him from being reelected, he exploded in anger, telling his advisor that he didn’t come here to get reelected.

As for the loss of experience and expertise if there were no career politicians, much — if not most — of that is experience and expertise in the arts of evasion, effrontery, deceit and chicanery. None of that serves the interest of the people.

If we want term limits to achieve their goals, we have to make the limit one term, with a long interval prescribed before the same person can hold any government office again. In short, we need to make political careers virtually impossible.

There are many patriotic Americans who would put aside their own private careers to serve in office, if the cost to them and their families were not ruinous, and if they had some realistic hope of advancing the interests of the country and its people without being obstructed by career politicians.

Is any of this likely today? No!

But neither the Reagan revolution nor the New Deal under FDR would have seemed likely three years before it happened. The whole point of presenting new ideas is to start a process that can make their realization possible in later years.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/18/thomas-sowell-a-real-term-limit/