Posted on 12/08/2012 7:54:17 AM PST by Kaslin
It’s a bad omen for free enterprise, prosperity and liberty when normally warring special interest groups such as big business and progressive activists agree on public policy.
During President Obama’s first term big business interests led by the pharmaceutical industry joined the union lobby in successfully making ObamaCare the law of the land.
Shortly after Obama’s re-election, history may be repeating itself this time regarding energy policy.
While it’s known that politics makes strange bedfellows none can be more bizarre than former White House green jobs czar Van Jones and Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson agreeing on a carbon tax.
As we witnessed with ObamaCare, the key to progressive legislative victory is converting a powerful opponent to a potent ally.
Transforming Exxon into a lobbyist for the left-wing’s war on fossil fuels is a huge coup for progressives and it’s been years in the making.
After hammering Exxon as the enemy of the environment for more than a decade and the public relations headaches that it brings to the board room – the company was ripe for waving the white flag.
Exxon faced the full armada of the environmental advocacy complex. Activist shareholders and protests at the company’s annual shareholder meetings were part of the advocacy targeting the company.
Activist groups also tracked Exxon’s financial support for conservative public policy organizations that conflicted with their view that industrial activity is responsible for global warming.
In an effort to repair its public image and lower its public profile Exxon ended its financial support of many conservative organizations and the company went soft on its global warming position.
A carbon tax meets both Exxon’s financial and public relations needs which also meshes with Obama’s war on coal.
Since coal emits twice as much carbon dioxide than natural gas, coal would be preferentially harmed by a carbon tax and open the door for Exxon – the largest producer of natural gas in the U.S. – to fill the void for electricity generation.
In a recent post on Seeking Alpha – a financial website – John Mylant described how a carbon tax would benefit Exxon.
“There is strong competition between coal and natural gas to generate electricity. It's really simple-if coal costs more, natural gas will look more appealing.”
Mylant also said, “Some believe the carbon tax will be a knockout blow for the thermal coal industry and a boon for the natural gas industry. Thus, a huge revenue benefit to Exxon.”
The goal for progressive activists and Exxon is to eliminate the coal industry through government and not through free market competition.
The coal industry is already on the ropes because of President Obama’s war on coal. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued regulations that dramatically increase the cost of using coal for electricity generation and a proposed rule for greenhouse gases, if finalized, would in effect stop the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
A carbon tax would certainly devastate the domestic coal industry and eliminate competition for power generation.
If passed, Exxon and other natural gas producers would likely profit from a carbon tax but it would come at a great cost to hardworking Americans.
A carbon tax would raise the cost of energy harming manufacturing, domestic energy production and push jobs overseas.
Higher energy prices are regressive harming those least able to pay such as lower and fixed-income households.
These adverse consequences will not affect the environmental progressive elites such as Jones or negatively impact Tillerson, his leadership team and Exxon board members.
Exxon is not alone in seeking ways to reduce the use of carbon based energy by making it more expensive. Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell and more than 100 other corporations signed a policy statement supporting, “a clear, transparent and unambiguous price on carbon emissions
must be a core policy objective, as part of a broader policy framework.”
While Obama rejected the idea of a carbon tax during his first press conference following the election, he could easily initiate the plan if a coalition of progressives and Exxon would lead the way.
Recall Obama’s first attempt to tax fossil fuels through cap-and-trade failed. Executing a carbon tax in his second term would add to his big government and anti-free enterprise legacy.
Witness the President's recent extra-constitutional assertions of power by Executive Order, under the guise that "we can't wait," or his overtures for assuming total responsibility for debt limits.
"Progressives," also, have promoted the "living constitution" idea for decades, using that ruse to bypass the Constitution's own Article V provision.
The following is excerpted from the conclusion of an essay by Dr. Walter Berns on that subject:
Those who would use "convenience" or "frustration" as reason, or who insist that it lies within the powers of the Court (or the Congress or the Executive) to effect constitutional change, can be charged with a lack of respect for the principles on which, as Marshall wisely observed: "the whole American fabric has been erected."
We are told that it is unreasonable - even foolish - to expect that the Framers could have written a Constitution suitable alike for a society of husbandman and a society of multinational corporations, to say nothing of one as well adapted to the age of the musket and sailing ship as to the age of intercontinental nuclear-tipped missiles. As the problems have changed, the argument goes, so must the manner in which they are confronted and solved, and the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand in the way. Indeed, there is no reason to allow it to stand in the way, we are told, because the Framers intended it to be flexible. And we are told that John Marshall would support this position. But it was Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, who stated: "Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported." The United States, in this view was not intended to be a simple society of husbandmen, and Marshall Clearly saw that the Constitution empowered Congress to do what was required to meet the crises of the Republic, and to maintain the Constitutional structure intended by the Framers, changing it only when such change would be in keeping with the structure itself.
That the American Constitution is long-lived, has enduring qualities, and was intended for the ages cannot be doubted. That it was founded on enduring principles, and that it was based on the authority of a people who are sovereign has been attested to by many of its leaders. That it can be changed when, and if, the people ordain such change is a part of its own provisions. For these reasons, it can be said to be a "Living Constitution" - but let that not be claimed by those who would use the language to subvert the structure.
Our Ageless Constitution - Part VII (1987) (Publisher: W. David Stedman Associates; W. D. Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Eds.) ISBN 0-937047-01-5 (Essay adapted by Editors for publication in this Volume in consultation with Dr. Walter Berns from Berns' article by the same title in National Forum, The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1984)
We are seeing a repeat of the 1930's German industries rush to support the Fuehrer in order to save their own necks. That of course did not end well. This time, who knows? Who is out there to save America except America?
The Framers wrote a Constitution with a full understanding of human nature. They did not write it for a technology, but for the persons who would be wielding that technology. Even then History was laden with numerous examples of how humans reacted to having power, their uses and abuses of that power, and the framers sought to promote the most beneficial of the former and to subvert the latter whenever possible. While no one can be perfect at stopping the forces of avarice and hunger for power that afflict some of the population, the framers counted on preempting as much as possible and the desire of the people to jealously guard their Liberty.
Unfortunately, we have reached the point where many will sell that birthright for a mass of pottage, and we may have reached the point where those members of our population have a numerical advantage.
It will bring upon us all only misery if that is the case, they can draw no water from the public well when it runs dry, and the lamentations of their thirst will resound through history as either the cries of the Republic being reborn or its death rattle. Which is up to us.
Who owns Exxon Mobil Corporation?
Key information on Exxon Mobil Corporation (Ticker: XOM)
CUSIP: 30231G102
Who owns Exxon Mobil Corporation?
Is XOM a good stock to own? Find out who bought Exxon Mobil Corporation, who sold Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) stock, and who holds a large position in Exxon Mobil Corporation.
Vanguard owns 211.42M shares worth $19.33B
STATE STREET CORPORATION owns 189.72M shares worth $17.35B
Wellington Management Company owns 64.54M shares worth $5.90B
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO owns 49.56M shares worth $4.24B
Bank of America Corporation owns 43.48M shares worth $3.98B
T. Rowe Price Associates owns 36.22M shares worth $3.31B
Norges Bank Investment Management owns 36.19M shares worth $3.07B
GOLDMAN SACHS owns 31.39M shares worth $2.87B
TIAA-CREF Investment Management owns 23.49M shares worth $2.15B
Legal & General owns 20.57M shares worth $1.88B
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN owns 17.87M shares worth $1.63B
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings owns 16.21M shares worth $1.48B
New York State Common Retirement Fund owns 16.00M shares worth $1.46B
Franklin Resources owns 13.75M shares worth $1.18B
Inves owns 13.62M shares worth $1.25B
CalPERS owns 13.22M shares worth $1.21B
American Century Companies owns 12.67M shares worth $1.16B
Ameriprise Financial owns 11.76M shares worth $1.01B
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking owns 11.67M shares worth $1.07B
ING Investment Management Co Address: 10 State House Square owns 11.45M shares worth $992.95M
Charles Schwab Investment Management owns 10.82M shares worth $993.41M
ARONSON JOHNSON ORTIZ owns 10.76M shares worth $920.83M
UBS AG owns 10.57M shares worth $916.34M
OZ Management owns 9.86M shares worth $835.34M
Funds who sold out of Exxon Mobil Corporation
Credit Suisse AG sold on Sept. 30, 2011
RHUMBLINE ADVISERS sold on Sept. 30, 2011
Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co sold on June 30, 2011
Golden Capital Management sold on March 31, 2011
FMR sold on Dec. 31, 2010
SAROFIM FAYEZ sold on Dec. 31, 2010
Wells Fargo & Company sold on Dec. 31, 2010
Dodge & Cox sold on Sept. 30, 2007
Except for Tantalum. It’s practically gone, no more left in usable quantities.
All the more reason to go forward and create a Constitutional Crisis. The more Government is tied up the better off We the People become.
Exxon, GE, Google, Microsoft, Wall Street banks, etc. All it takes for
socialism to rise is for a few big monopolistic cronies to make an alliance with the regime, to kill off their smaller competitors.
Because of economies of scale in the paperwork business combined with preferential treatment for "special" customers. Think about it: Let's say Exxon/Mobil wants to use CO for fracking purposes. Under that scheme, they would get a HUGE payment for drilling for oil. The lower unit cost of the applications and the benefits of being able to source their own CO gives them a big advantage over smaller jobbers. Hence, this scheme would consolidate their control over oil production and as a result, pricing.
And so it goes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.