In defense of Senator Clinton’s scheme of providing a gas tax holiday, CNBC’s Steve Liesman just went about as socialist as I have ever heard one of its “journalists” opine. For the record (one more time), CNBC can broadcast whatever crap they want. It’s a reflection of what so many voters viewers seem to believe and want to hear. The network is just trying to make money. If you are a socialist, you will probably like Steve’s comments and not like mine. If you are not a socialist but cannot stand big oil, you’ll probably still like Steve’s comments and not like mine. Do what you want with it. Please just have a firm understanding of where Liesman’s kind of commentary is taking our country.

Here’s the clip. The nonsense from Steve really starts coming in around the 3 minute mark.

Liesman - “I don’t actually have a tremendous problem with a windfall profits tax the way some people do.”

Steinhardt - I have a problem with windfall profits tax. I have a problem with governments deciding what level of profit is excessive - either on a dollar or percentage basis. I have a problem with governments deciding which industries can make excessive profits and which ones cannot.

Liesman - “I think we undercharge our oil companies for the oil they take out of our ground.”

Steinhardt - Where to begin. HMMM?! Maybe play a little Woody Guthrie “This Land Is Your Land” in the background. Liesman uses the “our” word in a very telling way. Are these “our” oil companies? Really? They aren’t mine. Does Liesman own the oil companies? Maybe a few shares? I really don’t need to know his personal holdings and supposedly CNBC “journalists” have restrictions on such conflicts. So I’ll just interpret it to mean that Steve believes the oil companies are “ours” - like for the common good. Like how the government is there for the common good. And then I move on to the really interesting comment about “our” ground. I am not sure if Steve owns any oil rich acreage (I do not), but I am just going to go with the idea he was talking in the figurative sense. Like how oil is a natural resource owned by all the citizens of a country. Just think about how that was handled in Russia and Venezuela. One interpretation is that Steve was only limiting his “our ground” comments to the oil removed from US government-owned property. That may be defensible but the percentage of oil removed from US government-owned property is a small fraction of what is produced around the world and therefore, increasing those royalty payments to whatever levels Steve feels would not cause “undercharging” would likely have no impact on the “windfall profits” he feels the government is entitled to.

…this land was made for you and me.