I watched the Senate hearings on energy company profits yesterday. I wasn’t surprised at the senators. Politicians can’t help being politicians. What disturbed me was how tame the oil company executives were in the face of all that cheap political posturing.
Just once, I’d like to see Mr. Earl FatCat, oil company CEO, take on Sen. Ima Blowhard in a public hearing. Imagine the following colloquy:
Sen. Blowhard: Mr. FatCat, high gasoline prices are causing real pain for low-income Americans. I see that your salary is $5 million a year. My question to you is this: Are you willing to donate a small percentage of that obscene salary to a fund that will help poor Americans pay their energy bills? Answer yes or no.
Mr. FatCat: Tell you what, Senator, I’ll donate the same percentage of my salary to help the poor that you donate from your salary.
Sen. Blowhard: That’s a different matter altogether! I’m a public servant!
Mr. FatCat: Then you ought to donate a bigger percentage of your salary than I do. After all, your salary is paid by taxes.
Sen. Blowhard: I earn my salary, Mr. FatCat!
Mr. FatCat: So do I, Senator. The difference is that I make money for my constituents – that is, my shareholders. You spend your constituents’ money at a rate that makes my head spin. Don’t you care about the future generations who will have to pay for the record deficits you politicians are piling up right now?
Sen. Blowhard: I ask the questions at this hearing, Mr. FatCat, and I will not be lectured by a shameless energy profiteer! I know you’re deliberately trying to drive up gasoline prices by restricting supply. Let the record show that your company hasn't built a new refinery in my state in 30 years!
Mr. FatCat: Since we’re speaking for the record, Senator, maybe you’d like to tell me just where you’d like my company to build a new refinery in your state. Tell me on the record which of your constituents would like to live next to an oil refinery.
Sen. Blowhard: You’re avoiding the issue!
Mr. FatCat: And you’re avoiding my question. Remember, the TV cameras are still rolling.
Sen. Blowhard: You’re not getting away with robbing the consumer, Mr. FatCat. I’m introducing a windfall profits tax bill! That bill will levy a 50 percent excise tax on profits earned when oil sells for more than $40 a barrel. What do you have to say to that?
Mr. FatCat: Does that mean I get a rebate when the price of oil slips back to $20 a barrel?
Sen. Blowhard: Mr. Chairman, I move that the witness’ answer be stricken from the record!
Mr. FatCat: Too late, Senator, it’s on the videotape.
Sen. Blowhard: Mr. Chairman, I move that TV cameras be excluded from the remainder of this hearing!
The Chair: Mr. FatCat is right, Senator, it’s a little late for that. Furthermore, your time has expired. Does anyone else have any questions for this witness? [pause] I didn’t think so. We stand adjourned.
Comments (6)
What do you suppose keeps Mr. FatCat from saying just that?
Posted by David Murray | November 10, 2005 2:50 PM
Posted on November 10, 2005 14:50
It's Kabuki theatre and both sides know it. The constituents are angry about higher energy prices. They insist that the politicians "do something" about it. The politicians -- unless they are totally ignorant of economics -- know that there are no short-term solutions except conservantion. Senators are not very good at producing oil. They can only produce hot air. So they hold these "show trials" to give themselves political cover -- to let the folks back home think they're actually "doing something." The oil execs play along, in the hope that after the politicians put them in the pillory for a few hours, they will be allowed to go back to work. "Speaking the truth to power," as Mr. FatCat did, will only get them cited for contempt of Congress, and may goad the politicians into doing something really stupid -- like enacting a windfall profits tax.
Posted by Hal Gordon | November 11, 2005 9:28 AM
Posted on November 11, 2005 09:28
A business executive "speaking the truth to power," in our age, would be a man justifying his unconscionable salary not to Congress, but to a mirror.
And the mirror replied, "But five million is only your base salary ...."
Posted by David Murray | November 12, 2005 12:33 PM
Posted on November 12, 2005 12:33
How many movie stars or professional athletes or tort lawyers make $5 million a year? Are their salaries "unconscionable"? I don't know that Tom Cruise has any trouble looking into a mirror. Is it "unconscionable" that college football coaches make more than Enlgish professors? Maybe it is. But to what authority -- if not the market -- would we entrust the setting of people's salaries?
Posted by Hal Gordon | November 15, 2005 6:34 PM
Posted on November 15, 2005 18:34
Yes, it is "unconscionable," as you and all other sensible people know.
I don't say I've got a method to control salaries in a society full of perverted values and insane people who think they deserve to live in a country absolutely safe from foreign threat, absolutely free to do as they wish at home, receiving tax cuts while a war is on and blissfully driving their Hummers toward the brink.
No, I confess: I do not know what to do about that.
But while it's going on, I can't hear an oil executive, especially in the context of this administration, characterized as a poor grunt being kicked around by mean, crazy bullies in government in hopes that he'll be eventually left alone to "go back to work," as you put it.
Posted by David Murray | November 15, 2005 6:48 PM
Posted on November 15, 2005 18:48
One more point, to return to relevance: I think the reasons CEOs don't publicly stand up for themselves and business as they once did (remember the old "profit is not a dirty word speeches"?), is because the sense the public will not have sympathy.
And maybe, because they have so much power they don't need words anymore.
Posted by David Murray | November 16, 2005 7:32 AM
Posted on November 16, 2005 07:32