Excessive Profits: Oil Companies or Disney?

Many of the US Senators and House of Representatives are "up in arms" about the profits that oil companies are making. Makings profits is what any company does - but with oil you start to get into the "big numbers" due to VERY simple math.

If a company makes just 7% profit on a barrel of oil (55 gallons in a barrel) that means $4.20 out of $60 cost. But when you deal with MILLIONS of barrels a day being refined that sheer volume along with the price per barrel is what makes the profit large - not the exploitation of people.

For the companies that OWN their oil fields then yes they are going to earn even MORE than that 7%. One of the problems with the current rules that the US Government forces them to run by is that they tie their own well production prices to the "spot" prices of the world. So their oil producing company charges the refining company the market prices - even though they be wholly owned by the same "shell" holding company. So the refinery portion still makes the 7% - but the oil producing part could easily make 30 to 50% net profit due to it being tied to the spot market prices.

Now compare them to Disney (or Universal Theme Parks or Six Flags) and you will see that Disney profit is around 30%. This is how they can pay their CEO 26 million dollars a year (total compensation) on the $8.8 BILLION in sales (2006). Just walk  into one of their parks and pay the $10 for a croissant and egg with 2 pieces of bacon - same price at a fast food place is $2.50. Who is charging excessively for a product Disney or Oil? Plus charging people to park their cars is really where they make a lot of money: 20,000 cars (guess) a day at $7 a car and you are making $140,000 x 365 days a year so you are making $51 MILLION a year - after expenses likely $45 million - just allowing people to park their cars to visit!

Do you see the US Congress investigating these excessive fees to vacationing people?

The vast majority of people are really clueless how things REALLY work - and all the behind the scenes fees, charges, regulations, that companies embed in the prices that they charge. 

Imagine what would happen if companies started printing on the receipts that you get all the government imposed fees that they pay, rules that they have to adhere to and the cost to implement those rules, and print print your itemized portion out on the receipt that you get?

I think gasoline stations should print out the total tax that you pay as a separate line on each receipt - then after each fill up you can ask where that $6.00+ in taxes being paid to state and Federal coffers is being spent?

 

 

Metro Regional Government of Oregon - Oblivious to the Obvious

I read an article in the Portland (Oregon) Tribune that METRO - a self contained overlay government entity that was created to "manage" growth  due to the inability of the three counties in northern Oregon would not talk with each other to coordinate planning - came to the conclusion after 15 years that new roads were not being built nor the old ones were being maintained.

This is not surprising since their de-facto policy is that no roads should be built or improved upon at all and all transportation infrastructure monies should be spent on buses, bike lanes and light rail.
To combat this lack of road building over last 15 years they have decided to fund a year long study on how to collect money to pay for roads that they discourage from being built. Add in the lack of state desire to repair / rebuild roads (or upping the gasoline tax to pay for the roads being ASKED for by people in the state) and the Federal monies that are being used to rebuild destroyed roads in the south - or elsewhere since METRO would  not put in for federal funds due to lack of desire to build roads - and you have a classic problem of government - completely oblivious to the problem they caused by a specific policy.

Since METRO is exempt from all rules - and are always asking to be exempt from most state rules - this waste of $150,000 on a study on how to raise money from the METRO people to pay for roads is quite stupid.

To pay for roads etc it is quite simple on what needs to be done:

Every vehicle in the METRO area is accessed a surcharge of $100 a year (payable at time of vehicle registration)

Every MAX rider is accessed 15 cents a ticket, 25 cents per day pass, $5.00 a month pass

Every Bus rider is accessed 15 cents a ride

 

and the money collected from each goes to pay for improvements in each area - and ONLY in that area.

 

Being a surcharge - and not a "tax" and METRO has full legal right to charge surcharges, the road, rail, bus problems are thus funded and they could start within a few months to build new roads, rail lines, and bus routes.

 

With 2 million cars in the METRO area that means $200,000,000 a year to build / repair / roads. New roads cost around 1 million a lane so that alone would allow 50 MILES of 4 lane roads to be built in a year - which would wipe out the congestion in all of Portland in 1 year. 5 Major roads in / out and rebuild / add 10 miles of 2 lanes to each would get rid of all traffic problems (there are bridges to be built so the cost goes up by 250% to get them built, that is where 150,000,000 million would have to be spent on in the first year.)

 

Could I have my $150,000 now?

Appleseed - Yakima April 2007

For the first time in years I attended an organized rifle training course since I was in the military.
This was an "Appleseed" - organized by the Revolutionary War Veterans Association http://www.rwva.org   - who are working to restore the basic military rifle marksmanship that people of the United States were taught starting starting with the initial settlers through to about mid 1960s when all basic rifle marksmanship in the general populace started to be discouraged by the Federal Government - and thus imposed through various sub government entities to the whole population.
 The 1968 Gun control Act (enacted as a reaction to multiple political assassinations that year) started a general decline in marksmanship that was a result of both policy and population shift from mostly rural living at the turn of the century to where now the percentage of population that lives in a "rural" area is down to 15% of the total US Population.   "In 1900, 60 percent of the people lived in rural areas and 40 percent lived in urban areas. In 1990, only 25 percent lived in rural areas,  with 75 percent in urban areas." http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-238.html  The 2000 Census had 281 million in metropolitan areas and 225 in rural making it 19% - I would suspect that is 15% now due to influx of both illegals having moved here and the continued movement from rural to metro areas.  The population of the US passed 300 million sometime in February 2007 (Census estimate.)  

 Many hunting, firearm restrictions are being placed nationwide , some on just the discharge  or even being seen with a firearm and you limit the ability of the vast majority to get to a location where they can practice marksmanship.  Yes there are "gun clubs" but this also imposes extra fees (mainly insurance and liability) and the maintenance of the facility. This can amount to a low of a few hundred dollars to likely a few thousand dollars in heavily (unnecessarily) regulated sites near cities. Plus to really have a true RIFLE range you need to have 2000 feet of distance to practice at (for both target range needs) plus the backstops, berms, etc that are needed to be effectively safe.
Given the nature of the Federal Government in the US, and the constant shrill of people stating that there is no need to "allow" people to have weapons (which by the 2nd Amendment states that right to "arms" cannot be taken away by the Government) which by long term effect means that people who DO join the military have NO clue what-so-ever of how to really use the weapons they are given. The US since the 1960s has relied on massive REAR AREA firepower to make up for the decline in marksmanship (in addition to the political desire to have the least amount of troops in the "front line" to lower political risks when deploying the military) and the heavy reliance on sophisticated - and hence complicated and dominoed weapon systems - to make up for the lack of accurate rifle fire on the ground.
This is not to say that they cannot hit the enemy - but often only if within 300 feet and only if they are standing in the open and not moving (snipers exempted from this generalization.)
One of the effects of the long term campaign to cast all gun owners as "outlaws" and that "modern" society no longer needs to have ANY weapons to defend themselves - modern society being so "safe" compared to 300 years ago - is that since the world-wide campaign started back in the 1960s the US has effectively lost any LONG term war that it has fought since Korea. If you took a company of US soldiers, put them up against a company of foreign soldiers and TOOK AWAY their artillery, airpower, and had a old WW II style infantry vs. infantry fight - I think that the US company would lose. They are not trained to fight like that - they will call in an F-16 to drop a bomb on a house rather than take it the "World War II" style. This is a top down driven policy and as such, the need to have accurate aimed rifle fire is NOT stressed or required.(The Marines I believe STILL teach marksmanship, but still not stressed as much as it was in WW II and before.)
This means that the 99% of the people who join the military have NO heritage or ability to accurate fire and hit a target (I include myself in this, I fired a 22 rifle when growing up, but at 20' it was meaningless as far as marksmanship goes and I was never trained on how to really use a rifle by my dad.) This "growing up" with weapons is what I think really helped us win World War I and II - a trained cadre of people who knew how to use a rifle BEFORE joining the military and getting even a BETTER rifle than what they used to hunt with when growing up - I doubt if there are any Audie Murphy's out there anymore.
The Appleseed program is a countrywide effect to train people - and especially the youngest generation - how to effectively handle a rifle and hit targets at 200+ yards. For those people who are unlikely to get into the military it is to train them so that they can teach those who live locally on how to be a "rifleman."
The Appleseed uses the AQT - Army Qualification Test - in their training.
Going to a two day class for most people will NOT put them into the top level score that is required to be classified at the top rank. The best I did in the military was get 68 out of 80 targets (25 meters to 300 meters) but then I only shot once a year - during qualification. At the Yakima event I did average (course with bad eyes and not being able to even SEE the target 70% of the time did not help) with my fixed iron sighted rifle.
Another one comes up in July 2007 in Medford, Oregon.