Clinton proposal smacks of socialism

The year 2007 has barely begun and we are already seeing tons of media coverage about next year's presidential race. But certain segments of the press are treating some figures, such as Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with kid gloves.

After reading some of the stuff written about Obama, you would think that the staffs of newsrooms across the country were readying themselves for the second coming of Christ. Likewise for Mrs. Clinton, who enjoys such favorable news coverage that Saturday Night Live recently did a biting parody of MSNBC's Chris Matthews practically worshipping the ground she walked upon.

But those following the candidates should keep an eye out for statements that aren't widely reported by the mainstream media organs. One such example involves statements made by Clinton during last week's winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee.

Oh, the media were there ... the main focus of their stories were about "her strongest words yet against the war," but a very disturbing statement she made during the same speech was somehow ignored. Hillary went on a rant about the profits earned by ExxonMobil in 2006 and the mask slipped off.

"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working trying to try push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence." 

Taking profits from a business and handing over to the government? That's socialism, folks.

Hillary's apparent belief that the profits of corporations are the government's to take is frightening. And it's not just a bunch of fat cats flying around the world or living it up in the tropics that are the main shareholders in companies like ExxonMobile, it's people like you and me.

Stocks like ExxonMobile are part of many retirement funds for hundreds of thousands of American workers. People like retired teachers, fire and policemen depend on these annual dividends for monthly checks. Do you think these retirees will be happy about Hillary getting her hands on their hard-earned money?

No, but if she convinces the public that she wants to take the money away from super rich CEOs, people will buy into her socialist scheme. They are all a bunch of "evil, rich corporations" anyway.

But according to the Tax Foundation, governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes in recent decades than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits.

This isn't the first time Hillary has made a statement like this. In June of 2004, she told an audience of supporters to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if the Democrats won the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Let that sink in for a minute.

We've already been seeing this sort of thing taking place down in Venezuela, where Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez has been busy confiscating the media, telecommunications companies, oil companies, banks and other businesses and placing them under his personal control.

Chavez's supporters in the Venezuela Congress extended his authority recently and he is now allowed to rule by decree over the next 18 months. That means the possible full-scale nationalization of the petroleum and telecommunications industries in that country, where there is significant American capital invested. These companies and their stockholders could face millions in losses if Chavez seizes these private assets.

All for the "common good," of course.

Let's hope that voters in 2008 will choose a candidate that believes in free enterprise and the incentive to be successful instead of the confiscation and redistribution of what she thinks "belongs" to the government.