After reading an interview with Hillary Clinton on ABC news, I was worried. I knew that there were many things that I would not agree with Sen. Clinton on, but it is much worse than I thought. George Stephanopoulos had a few questions that he wouldn't allow her to squirm out of.
Here is a section from the interview:
CLINTON: Well, No. 1, my proposal is very different from Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain has said take off the gas tax, don't pay for it, throw us further into deficit and debt. That is not what I've proposed. What I've proposed is that the oil companies pay the gas tax instead of consumers and drivers this summer.
Now, why am I proposing this? Well, No. 1, I am absolutely convinced that these record profits of the oil companies are a result of a number of factors beyond supply and demand. I think there has been market manipulation. In fact, Exxon Mobil official testifying under oath before the House of Representatives committee said that if it were just market factors, then the price of oil would be like $50 or $55 a barrel.
We know that there's market manipulation going on. So I would launch an investigation if I were president right now by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. I would also quit buying oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We're 97 percent full. We don't need to keep buying it at these prices, and I would release some.
I would begin to go directly at OPEC. I think it's been 25 years where we've, you know, largely just been at the mercy of the OPEC countries.
But this gas tax issue to me is very real, because I am meeting people across Indiana and North Carolina who drive for a living, who commute long distances, who would save money if the oil companies paid this $8 billion this summer, instead of it coming out of the pockets of consumers.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Economists say that's not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies. They're not going to actually lower their prices. And the two top leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economist in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing.
Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?
CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I think we've been for the last seven years seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans. From the moment I started this campaign, I've said that I am absolutely determined that we're going to reverse the trends that have been going on in our government and in our political system, because what I have seen is that the rich have gotten richer. A vast majority -- I think something like 90 percent -- of the wealth gains over the last seven years have gone to the top 10 percent of wage earners in America.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?
CLINTON: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.
Now, look, I have long-term plans too. I mean, it's a misnomer to say this is all that I'm doing. It's not. I have a comprehensive long-term energy plan that would go right at dependence on foreign oil. We've got to undermine this incredible addiction that we have. We use more foreign oil today than we did on 9/11. That is a disaster for America.
Also that we've got to move toward more alternative and renewable fuels, and get out gas mileage up. You know, increase those standards.
The interview goes on and there is even more to be concerned with. However, let's just take a second to look at the section above. Sen. Clinton says:
"Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively."
Let's start with the comment about her not throwing her lot in with economists. There is usually a misguided or delusional economist behind most bad policy. The fact that she cannot name one who agrees with her plan is bothersome. Sen. Clinton also seems to have some disdain for economists in general. It seems as though she does not believe that their field of study is valid. Since it is the President who appoints the board of directors for the Fed, it scares me to think of who she might appoint. Of course the board of directors of the Fed, have 14 year terms that are staggered, so only a couple will be up for replacement if Hillary is elected for 4 years.
Now to the another thing that bothers me. Sen. Clinton talking about the Presidents role in interfering with the market, "if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency". Since President George W. Bush is who Sen. Clinton is referring to, be very afraid. The abuse and expanse of the power of the Presidential office is one of the things that really offends me about President Bush. To say that President Bush has not used all the tools of the presidency, is an understatement. Bush has used all the tools of his office and many that do not belong to him. The expanse of power the office of the president has seen over the last 7 years is really remarkable. Why the American people are not rioting is the streets is a question that should probably be asked. President Bush has been awarded an Honorary Law Degree from Yale. They must be impressed at his ability to overstep the bounds of his presidency and not have any real action taken by Congress against him.
Another thing that I wonder about, if we impose a 18.4 cent per gallon tax on the oil companies, do we really expect that to lower the price of gas. Is there any reason why the oil companies would not simply raise the price 18.4 cent per gallon to make up for this new expense?
Sen. Clinton has said that she wants to take away the profits from big oil. Don't take my word for it, just watch the video below.
Well it's good to know that Sen. Clinton takes a Laissez-Faire approach to the market...
There is a descent clip of Glen Beck, talking to the president of Exxon Mobil. Explaining that he enjoys it when companies are making money. I agree with Glen on this matter, I like to see companies that are successful. I am tired of hearing about how the big corporations can raise their prices and consumers are helpless to do anything. There is a reason that Wal-Mart has 5000 stores in the United States, people shop there. I personally don't agree with some of the business practices that Wal-Mart employs, so I simply don't shop there. I value paying higher prices somewhere else than supporting Wal-Mart. This is a a personal choice that I have made. Wal-Mart is often criticized for running smaller businesses out of business. Perhaps we should be thanking them instead for removing the inefficient firms from the market. Like I said, I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I don't support some of their business practices, not to mention that they only sale inferior goods. However the fact that they have been extremely successful says that someone is shopping there. In fact with 5000 stores a lot of people are shopping and also working there. Since Wal-Mart makes it money– like every other firm–by serving its customers needs, perhaps we should take a second to think about why we dislike Wal-Mart.
Thanks to the author of Whatever it is, I'm against it, for pointing out the interview with Sen. Clinton. This is a blog worth checking out if you enjoy the stupidity that our President regularly indulges in.
