Hillary imitates Hugo

Investor's Business Daily Editorial:

Sen. Hillary Clinton publicly threatens to seize oil company profits and use them as she sees fit. Sounds like she's treating the world's greatest nation as her own little banana republic.

Exxon Mobil last week announced that it earned $39.5 billion in 2006, making it the most profitable year any company has ever had. It didn't take long for the socialist impulses on the left to kick in.

Speaking Friday at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Washington, Clinton said that if she were elected president, she would confiscate that profit and use it to further her political agenda.

OK, those weren't her exact words. But judge for yourself what she has in mind: "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence," she said with wide, glowing eyes that suggested the mere thought of taking money that didn't belong to her gave her a thrill.

Threatening to hijack private property in the energy industry is a serious matter.

If Clinton were able to seize profits, shareholders would suffer harm and Americans who use energy — that's all of us, except maybe Ted Kaczynski in his Unabomber days — would be saddled with higher prices and lower supplies. The painful effects would be felt across the economy through lost opportunities and inefficiencies.

Yet the media largely yawned at the senator's plan to suspend property rights protection. Call it the Hugo Chavez Treatment.

...

Many in the media seem to share her position on the use of profits. Of course most of them work for businesses that have not seen a profit to confiscate lately. Hillary does not care about the consequences of her plans as long as her intentions are so "riotous." She had the same problem when she wanted to take over health care. As long as you are down with the cause you can get away with anything.

Neal Boortz points out who would really be hurt by Hillary's attack on profits:

...

Here we have to battle the economic ignorance of the American people ... an economic ignorance fostered by our hideous system of government education. Most Americans believe that the Exxon Mobile shareholders are probably rich fat cats sitting on their yachts in the Bahamas or jetting around the world on their private jets when they aren't living in their multi-million dollar homes.

Wrong.

Some of the largest shareholders in Exxon Mobile are quite likely retirement funds. Teacher retirement funds, Police retirement funds. Fireman retirement funds. These funds invest their member's money in stocks of corporations likely to return a good annual dividend. The dividends are then used to write the monthly checks to retirees. This is the money that Hillary wants to "take."

Now Hillary knows this. She may be America's most dangerous politician (you're beginning to see why) but she most certainly is not stupid. She knows who those Exxon Mobile shareholders are. She also knows that most Americans buy the fat-cat scenario and that she can talk about "taking" corporate profits with virtual immunity. The people who she depends on to vote for her have no understanding how dangerous she is.

...

Hillary attacks union pensions with her hatred of profits. That is quite a campaign theme.