logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-02-05 05:03:39 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the IRC chat feature.

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2005

  "Grilling" redefined. The carpet was red. The red was not blood.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: "Grilling" redefined. The carpet was red. The red was not blood.  (Read 4095 times)
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
"Grilling" redefined. The carpet was red. The red was not blood.
« on: 2005-11-18 19:52:33 »
Reply with quote

Two Meetings? One Mind? Two Minds. Much Bleating.

The carpets were red
The air was not blue
The politicians indebted
To you know who.


Hermit


Oil and Grilling Don't Mix


Moderately Right Wing Paper

Source: Washington Post
Authors: Dana Milbank
Dated: 2005-11-10

Senators struck a note of populist outrage when they ordered oil executives to appear before the Energy and Commerce committees to explain high fuel prices and record company profits. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), announcing the hearing, said it would expose "those who abuse the free-enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans."

But instead of calling oil executives on the carpet yesterday, senators gave them the red-carpet treatment.

The companies summoned to testify have given about $400,000 in PAC money this year alone -- and much of that has found its way to those who served as the executives' interrogators. So while protesters came to the hearing wearing "Exxpose Exxon" T-shirts, most lawmakers opted to extol Exxon Mobil -- and Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell.

"First, let me begin by thanking each of you and the companies for what you all did to save lives, to save property, to restore the communities along the Gulf Coast," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has taken $249,155 in oil and gas money over five years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"There's a great deal we know about your industry; there's a great deal the average citizen does not know," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho, $96,950), explaining popular hostility to the industry. "I must tell you, it's not terribly fun defending you. But I do."



Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H., $64,480) praised the executives for being "very reasonable." He said industry's profits are big "because they are very big companies," and he argued against higher taxes on their profits.

From the start, the ferocity of the questioning seemed to come in inverse proportion to the amount of industry funds a questioner had received.

When Energy Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, $102,190) announced that he would not require the executives to give their testimony under oath, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash., $9,400) asked for a vote on the issue. Stevens shot back: "There will be no vote . . . It's the decision of the chairman, and I have made that decision."

"I move that we swear in witnesses," Cantwell persisted.

"I second the motion," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif., $9,450).

"That's the last we're going to hear about that, because it's out of order," a piqued Stevens replied. When the two women continued their protest, the chairman informed them that "I intend to be respectful of the position that these gentlemen hold."

Stevens did not fail in this goal. When Boxer later displayed a large chart showing the executives' pay, Stevens cut her off.

"We'll stop the clock right here for you, Senator," Stevens said, ordering the chart taken down because it was not "information that pertains to our issue."

From the audience, a woman called out: "How about the consumers?" When the same woman later let out a cheer, Stevens threatened to "clear the room."

At times, the senators seemed to be bigger boosters of the industry than the executives themselves. Under questioning from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore., $12,500), all five executives testified that they did not need the tax breaks in the recent energy bill.

"That energy legislation is zero in terms of how it affects Exxon Mobil," said the company's chairman, Lee Raymond.

This did not sit well with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex., $306,820). "But," she asked, don't the tax breaks "make a difference" in investment decisions?

Raymond would not play along. "They will not significantly alter the programs that we have," he said. Stevens scratched his head.

More than one senator begged the executives to help them explain high energy prices to consumers. "Please," said Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M., $164,158), "describe in detail how the price of oil is set." Nobody volunteered. So Domenici called on Raymond to "put yourself in my shoes."

The executives rebuffed requests from other friends. They wouldn't comment on a request by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M., $43,864) for their thoughts on fuel economy standards. When Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn., $117,450) asked whether they favor more efficient natural gas plants, Shell's John Hofmeister advised him: "That's a question for the utilities."

The executives were even less forthcoming when questions turned hostile. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J., $10,000) asked whether any of the companies had participated in Vice President Cheney's energy task force, and all five answered in the negative. Fortunately, they were not under oath: A report by the Government Accountability Office found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force.

Lautenberg did not press the issue. Those wearing the "Exxpose Exxon" T-shirts put on their jackets. The unscathed executives walked briskly with their security guards from the building, past a pair of demonstrators with "Return the Gas and Oil Money" signs, and into their waiting Cadillacs
Oil CEOs defend soaring profits
Tell panel hurricanes, global forces to blame


Much More Right Wing Paper

Source: USA Today
Authors: Paul Davidson
Dated: 2005-11-10

WASHINGTON — Heads of five big oil companies defended the industry's lofty profits Wednesday as lawmakers demanded they explain why Americans are being squeezed by high fuel prices.

The executives blamed the Gulf Coast hurricanes, which shut down refineries, and global forces, including rising crude-oil prices. They argued that their business is cyclical, citing weak profits in the late 1990s.

ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond told a joint hearing of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, “There are ups, and there are downs. Our job is to manage for the long term.”

Yet in testy exchanges, several senators insisted that the price increases suggest the companies might be lining their pockets at consumers' expense. Some lawmakers have backed legislation to combat what they call price gouging and to impose a windfall profit tax, which could be returned to consumers as a rebate.

“Most consumers find (the prices) terribly unfair,” said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. “Talk is cheap.”

Average gasoline prices topped $3 a gallon before dropping about 50 cents recently. And home-heating costs are projected to soar this winter. Meantime, the oil industry posted third-quarter profits of nearly $33 billion.

The executives insisted their profit margins were modest. ConocoPhillips' James Mulva said the company's $3.8 billion third-quarter earnings represented a 7.7% profit margin, in line with other industries. But some Republicans joined Democrats in arguing that the oil giants seem to be manipulating prices. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the industry, to keep profits high, is refusing to build refineries that could ease the supply crunch.

The executives joined some Republicans in opposing a windfall profit tax. Raymond said “punitive measures” would stifle investment in production. Mulva rejected a Republican request to help low-income families pay heating bills, saying one industry shouldn't have to fund a government program.

Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, head of the Commerce committee, refused a Democratic request to swear in the executives. That avoided the kind of embarrassing photo that showed tobacco executives at a 1994 hearing swearing cigarettes were not addictive.
























































« Last Edit: 2005-11-19 00:21:17 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed