Man's ingratitude

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is a petulant jerk.

The cost for residential heating oil is still well above what it was last year -- which is a source of real hardship for many Americans this winter. And they're not getting any help from Congress, which still isn't funding LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, at a level that would allow all families that qualify to receive assistance.

Poor Americans are getting some help this winter from, of all places, Venezuela, where the per capita GDP -- even factoring in Bobby Abreu's salary -- is only around $5,800.

Venezuela's Citgo Petroleum Corp. is offering heating oil at a 40 percent discount to low-income families throughout the American Northeast.

Here are some of the words Rep. Barton has used to describe this assistance: "unfriendly," "belligerent," "hostile." Barton is chair of the House Energy Committee, whose spokesperson, Lisa Miller, also chimed in on the fuel assistance for poor families, calling it "obnoxious." Barton and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., have launched a congressional investigation of Citgo.

No, really.

Citgo is being investigated by the GOP Congress for helping low-income American families. Joe Barton seems to think launching such an investigation -- trying to stop, or at least interfere with, such assistance -- is his job as a member of Congress.

So who, exactly is Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas? His opponent in November, David Harris, tells us:

* Joe Barton is the bought-and-paid-for servant of the American oil industry.

* Joe Barton is a personal contributor of $5,000 to Tom Delay's defense fund.

* Joe Barton has been recognized as a "Clean Air Villain of the Month."

* Joe Barton voted against aid for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

I don't know Joe Barton personally, though, so it's possible that -- aside from being a thoroughly corrupt hack working feverishly against the interests of his constituents and his country -- he's actually a nice guy.

Comments

[PUck]

Hugo Chavez is a hero - a man who is overturning the money tables of global capitalism.

[Dan]

"Barton seems to think launching such an investigation -- trying to stop, or at least interfere with, such assistance -- is his job as a member of Congress."

Of course they're decrying it and doing their darndest to put the kibosh on the whole thing: that dang bolshie Chavez is making them look bad by doing exactly what the US govt should be doing themselves! Nothing like showing up a person's own negligence to earn their undying hatred ...

Blow, blow, thou winter wind
thou art not so unkind as man's ingratitude
thy tooth is not so keen,
because thou art not seen
although thy breath be rude ...

[Scott]

Poor Americans are getting some help this winter from, of all places, Venezuela, where the per capita GDP -- even factoring in Bobby Abreu's salary -- is only around $5,800.

In other words, the poor of Venezuela are being forced to give to the more well off poor of the US so their leader can score political points. Makes you feel all warm and cuddly, doesn't it?

[Quinn]

So, what you're saying is that, eventhough it's morally right to help someone avoid freezing to death, it's still wrong because there's a secondary motive of scoring political "points"? That somehow doesn't make sense to me. So, he's scoring political points? So What. Citgo is owned by the Venezuelan government through the national oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). Chavez is viewed as a socialist reformer by Venezuela's poor who, despite several attempts at coup and a recall referendum, continue to support him and reelect him. Offering the heating oil at a discount still provides income for Citgo and funds Chavez's government programs. The poor of Venezuela aren't being put out at all, if you think about it.

[Puck]

Scott makes an excellent point here. It is the people of Venezuela who elected Chavez - not the people of America. Selling Venezuelan oil to America should be their decision.

[Lucia]

Well, Venezuela's poor are being put out, or more accurately sold out, if you assume that 1) the oil being sold at a discount could be sold at full price and 2) the additional money coming to Citgo/the Venezuelan government would then be redistributed equitably to the poor. (I thought libertarians opposed such redistribution?)

But Barton and his ilk don't appear to give a flying rat's behind about poor people of any nationality. They are concerned that helping poor people might be "hostile" to Bush and his agenda. Hmm, they may have something there.

[AH]

I would argue that for Chavez (whatever his merits or demerits as a leader) to score positive PR points in the US does in fact benefit ordinary / poor Venezuelans (e.g. by making it harder for the Bush Admin to meddle destructively in Venezuela's internal affairs).

Whether it benefits them more or less than whatever else might have been done with the money is simply a matter for cost-benefit analysis.

Quite apart from the fact that the discounts probably mean a bigger market share for Citgo in any case.

And it's not as if big business doesn't exploit apparently-charitable activities for their PR value, now is it. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

[pharoute]

I'm sure that any loss (and I doubt there is) Citgo is taking on discounted heating oil is more than made up for in gasoline profits.

[The Navigator]

Under American business law, the directors of publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize value for the shareholders, and they cannot "waste" the corporation's assets by giving money away or spending it unwisely or for 'good' causes - except to the extent that such expenditures could be justified as, in some way, redounding to the ultimate long- or short-term benefit of the corporation. Courts usually apply a "business judgment rule", under which the directors are basically allowed wide latitude to exercise their judgment, and are given the benefit of the doubt about whether any given expenditure will ultimately benefit the corporation.

That's how support for charitable organizations, sponsorship of stock car races, etc. etc. is justified - if they couldn't argue that such support was somehow increasing/preserving the company's value, that support would be a violation of their duty and grounds for liability in a shareholder lawsuit - but virtually any such support would be upheld as reasonable and thus proper under the business judgment rule.

I am fully confident that Chavez's discounted heating oil sales would be held to be reasonable and proper under U.S. corporate law principles, and in keeping with Chavez's duty to maximize value for Venezuela's citizens, i.e. Citgo's shareholders. Even if he didn't make the 'indirect' benefit arguments, he might well have a case that there was a straight-up direct profit advantage from advertising a discount and thus capturing a larger market share.

[Puck]

Let's not pretend that Chavez is not under seige. Chavez likely sees his government as under attack by global capitalists - and I'd say he's probably right (BTW he will probably lose that battle - look for some kind of "orange revolution" or increasingly violent student demonstrations - the usual Bolshevick tactics organized by capitalists and implemented by NGOs on the street in Venezuela - soon).

He doesn't give a rat's butt about law Navigator - this is war - and the only force strong enough to defeat capitalism is nationalism. Cavez is a national socialist.

If he can undermine our govenment then he's doing no different than what our government is trying to do to him.

[Lucia]

Chavez is a national socialist.

That does give one pause.

[randomliberal]

As an Official Resident of Arlington™, and therefore a constituent of Joe Barton's, I can safely inform you that he is, in fact, an asshole who doesn't give a damn about anything other than personal power.

[Puck]

Oh I dunno - National Socialism has worked pretty well for Israel.

Still one can hope that Amerika will soon have exhausted its strength and no longer be able to make wars all over the world. Then Chavez would have a chance. Maybe our Iraq fiasco will achieve that.

Till then - smart money bets he goes down in two years.

[todd]

Puck:

Quick question. Why did you spell America with a 'k', i.e., "Amerika"? I've noticed alot of people, mostly libs, using this spelling. What gives?

[Mandos]

Think Kafka.

[Puck]

Well Todd this is a liberal blog - right?

Besides - it's my way of complaining about our turn towards totalitarianism.

If you don't like it I could stop. But it shouldn't be a big deal.

[Fred]

Todd --

Puck is referring to the trainwreck of a 1987 miniseries starring a distracted and somewhat embarrassed-looking Kris Kristofferson (think: a less-plausible version of "Red Dawn"). I don't know why he's obsessed with that particular bit of TV-history detritus -- the workings of the troll brainstem are a mystery.

[Mabus]

Funny how Puck isn't aware how totalitarian his "liberal" pal Chavez is. He feeds the poor, yeah--he also runs his country with an iron fist. Here in America, "liberals" complain that we shouldn't trade liberty for security. But they love to praise foreign countries that do the same.

[Ice]

Why do I suspect a right-wing troll attack here?

Oh, that's right! Because the post is about what a slimeball Joe Barton is, and yet they are trying to put all the attention on Chavez!

Let's start over...

Fred - I appreciate the post. Though by now I should never be amazed at how venal, corrupt, and just plain mean so many politicians are.

[Ray]

I think Puck is trying to be clever, and the failure mode is being confusing.

[Puck]

Good morning. Fred I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I don't watch TV (except for the Olympics and Dancing With The Stars :-) (Furthermore - you watch too much TV - get away from it - go out an talk with real people)

What is a troll?? It seems to be someone who posts here whom you wish wouldn't post here - right?

Hugo Chavez is a hero to his people - not to globalist causes, or to ideologies, or to religious doctrines, or to capitalism. And although I am not one of his people - his dedication to them makes him a hero to me.

[Quinn]

Lucia, I'm not a libertarian. I'm a democratic socialist. I believe there's no way to have a legitimate democracy if the system is set up to disenfranchise an entire segment of the population because they don't have the money to buy into the system.
Of course Chavez has totalitarian tendencies. I don't believe there's a leader on the world stage today who doesn't. People who seek out power are never completely atruistic, even if they focus on good deeds. And all of them are equally interested in maintaining their power - and that can't be done without a little totalitarianism, unfortunately. I don't agree with it, don't like it, and will continue to fight it but there will always be this choice between the lesser of two evils as long as any human being is granted the authority to rule over others.
Joe Barton and others like him (Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts, and Todd Tiarht in my home state) speak about their "faith" and "morality" but always fail to do anything for the poor or the unemployed except to make it harder for them to get out of poverty.
We can invoke Ben Franklin's line about those willing to give up essential liberty for a little security deserving neither, but be careful we're not protecting the weathly's perceived "liberty" to rob, oppress, and kill-by-neglect, the poor because it hides behind their supposed rights, legal or otherwise, to make a profit for themselves.
Regardless of the motives, or legalities of corporate "obligation to share holders", Chavez and Venezuela, stepped forward and did what no American oil company was willing to do - prevent people from freezing to death.
Part of the problem is that, although we treat corporations like "people" we don't demand of them the same moral behavior that we demand of real people - and, frankly, we should demand such morality. Either that or quit treating corporations like "people."

[Scott]

Well, Venezuela's poor are being put out, or more accurately sold out, if you assume that 1) the oil being sold at a discount could be sold at full price and 2) the additional money coming to Citgo/the Venezuelan government would then be redistributed equitably to the poor. (I thought libertarians opposed such redistribution?)

Then why bring up in the original post their relatively low incomes in Venezuela when praising the transfer to US poor? If it works to shame Bush, it works to shame Chavez.

I would argue that for Chavez (whatever his merits or demerits as a leader) to score positive PR points in the US does in fact benefit ordinary / poor Venezuelans (e.g. by making it harder for the Bush Admin to meddle destructively in Venezuela's internal affairs).

Ah, yes. Scoring points for "our side" benefits the poor, so the standards differ for 'us'. If Bush took from 3rd world poor to benefit people in the US (and any good liberal will take issue w/ my use of the word 'if'), he's evil.

Can ShrubCo pressure govts in poorer nations to sell us cut-rate national resources w/o being exploitive?

[jill_bryant]

I'm sorry - they made Kafka's Amerika into a mini-series on TV with Kris Kristofferson? Wow - I can't believe they put Kafka on TV much less a mini-series. I have to find that one....

[ffakr]

The only vaild criticism here is completely unsupported.

Is Chavez potentially harming his citizens for political points? No one has provided any information either way. The question that needs to be answered is, will his people be better off or worse off if they sell a very large amount of heating Oil at 40% below market rates?

I can easily make a valid argument that they won't.
If they sell more heating oil because of this instead of discounting the same volume of sales they will be ahead unless they are selling it below cost.
I HIGHLY doubt they would sell it below cost considering the average pay is so low and the current market value is so high.
If they increase their output as a result of this (off setting purchases from American and middle-eastern companies/nations) then this would undeniably be good for both the US Poor AND Chavez's people.. even if their profit margin was thin in Venezuala. Increased production means more profit and more demand for labor. More money, more people working in Venezualia. Less burden on the US Poor. Who looses here? Only two groups, equities traders and US Oil companies.

[AH]

Scott says "Ah, yes. Scoring points for "our side" benefits the poor, so the standards differ for 'us'. If Bush took from 3rd world poor to benefit people in the US (and any good liberal will take issue w/ my use of the word 'if'), he's evil."

I have no idea how you got there from what I said. Who is "our side"? I'm not an American. Nor do I particularly care about Chavez one way or another, except that I'm pretty sure he's a better man for his job than whoever Bush would install given the chance.

My point was very narrow with regard to the beneficial effects of positive PR, which may in many cases be worth more than the money it cost to obtain said positive PR. As all good corporations understand - thus these actions may make Chavez a wily businessman rather than a misuser of his people's resources. I really don't know how you get from this to the "Bush"-"3rd world poor" thing. I guess the opportunity to bash your liberal bogeyman one more time was just too much to resist.

ffakr - I tried to make a similar point above : "Quite apart from the fact that the discounts probably mean a bigger market share for Citgo in any case."

[Joe Barton, Rethug]

How Dare that Socialist try to show that Oil Companies in other countries Can still make a buck without gouging the Public?! Capitalism is the heart of Amerikanism NOW! Not all that Christian Charity crap. We Own Jesus Christ TM! NO third world Leader should be able to help out the poor of The US of W! If we don't want to help our People, Nobody should!

[LL]

RE Barton: I live in Texas, and Barton is indeed a jerk. BTW, Go Kinky!

RE Chavez: my default opinion of all politicians is that whatever they do is to benefit themselves primarily. If the end result is a benefit to someone else, groovy, but their prime directive is to ensure/increase their own power. Whatever Chavez's reason for the gesture (maybe to embarrass Bush, not that Bushco needs help in that department, every day it seems they produce fresh reason for us all to be embarrassed by them), I feel certain Chavez's main goal was to glorify himself. And Republican politicians seem to be reflexively hostile to anything that doesn't specifically help to burnish Bushco's deluded sense of its own greatness, no matter the intent (stated or implied) of someone else's words/gestures. They're all a bunch of boobs.

[Scott]

If they sell more heating oil because of this instead of discounting the same volume of sales they will be ahead unless they are selling it below cost.
I HIGHLY doubt they would sell it below cost considering the average pay is so low and the current market value is so high.

Then they deserve no moral credit for their 'generosity', and it's just an amoral (not immoral, just not a moral issue either way) business decision and not a Blow For Social Justice.

[wintermute]

Scott: You can only claim to be moral if you're pumping your own personal money into a cause? Sending off a cheque for $10 to your preferred charity (I like the Society for Maiming Defenceless Animals) is more noble than spending your weekends (when you'd not get paid anyway) working at a soup kitchen, making sure the homeless get fed with food other people donated (and thus, you didn't pay for)?

If a business can make a profit by doing the morally right thing, does it automatically become morally suspect? Even if they'd make more of a profit by acting immorally? That sounds a little simplistic to me.

[Constantine]

Then they deserve no moral credit for their 'generosity', and it's just an amoral (not immoral, just not a moral issue either way) business decision and not a Blow For Social Justice.

Ok. Acceptable line of reasoning there. Now, is the act of blocking such an amoral business decision which would help the poor something that is immoral, moral, or amoral?

[RppPolyp]

Interesting, no one defending Barton... hmmm...

As much as Galloway and Chavez are egotists, I would love to see a George Galloway style smackdown performed by Chavez on this Barton fu--- uh fellow.

Oh and bigger question Barton defenders too cowardly to mention his name: um, will they make these CITCO oil executives testify UNDER OATH, unlike the previous oil price-gouging hearings where the MobilExxon oil exec, Jabba the Hutt, could lie away without fear of perjuring himself.

[David]

I am pretty sure that Abreu's salary does not contribute to Venezuela's GDP. It contributes to Venezuala's GNP, but to America's GDP (and to Canada's, if he plays any games in Toronto, though I am not sure what league he is in right now, and, if it is the National League, whether his team plays any interleague games there).

[Mabus]

Wintermute, doing something that will benefit you doesn't automatically make it selfish, but it does give others the right to suspect your true motives and look you over more closely. Wal-Mart's "low prices every day" help poor people at the point of purchase, but I doubt anyone here would praise Wal-Mart for it. Their other actions make their real motives clear.

[Scott]

Scott: You can only claim to be moral if you're pumping your own personal money into a cause? Sending off a cheque for $10 to your preferred charity (I like the Society for Maiming Defenceless Animals) is more noble than spending your weekends (when you'd not get paid anyway) working at a soup kitchen, making sure the homeless get fed with food other people donated (and thus, you didn't pay for)?

Giving away somebody else's money (by leftist standards, the oil within the borders of Venezuela belong to "the people" there) doesn't make you generous. Volunteering your time at a soup kitchen does (volunteering someone else's time doesn't).

Ok. Acceptable line of reasoning there. Now, is the act of blocking such an amoral business decision which would help the poor something that is immoral, moral, or amoral?

Go ahead and call the Republicans immoral - I'm a libertarian.

Hey, wait a minute. If Citgo is coming in w/ lower prices to get business, doesn't that prove the market works, and consumers aren't forced to pay whatever Big Business feels like charging? After all, according to the left, Our Hero Chavez wasn't forced to offer a lower price by any govt regulators.

[Alexander Wolfe]

We liberals here in Texas would like to collectively apologize for Barton, DeLay, Bush, Rove, etc., etc., etc.....

[Kim]

Quinn said, "Part of the problem is that, although we treat corporations like "people" we don't demand of them the same moral behavior that we demand of real people - and, frankly, we should demand such morality. Either that or quit treating corporations like "people." "

and isn't that interesting in the light of what someone else said about "fiduciary duty" to NOT be charitable.