That man may last, but never lives,
Who much receives, but nothing gives;
Whom none can love, whom none can thank,
-- Creation's blot, creation's blank.
- - Thomas GibbonsFederal spending is 4 to 1 in favor of highways over mass transit. And this guy thinks that Exxon is paying too much to the federal government even though they earn obscene profits that eclipse some third world countries' GNPs. (Shouldn't we have more paved roads than Haiti?). Who is more eligible to pay for auto-based infrastructure if not the oil companies?
One reason that I can't take too seriously the ethics credentials of conservatives who preach on campaign finance is that they spout the virtues of capitalism without regard to its vices, one of which is that corporations plow money into political campaigns to shelter their competitive edge. Only the naive (or the cynical) can argue with a straight face that such a large segment of the ruling class principally plows its profits into finding oil and employing people. Exclusive private schools have tuitions that have to be paid. Someone has to bankroll the Gucci'ed livestyles of the wealthy before more employees are hired.
So, we don't need more sermons defending Exxon for its obscene profits and bemoaning taxes they have to pay for being among the oil monopoly. If they want Americans at the bottom of their trickle trough to consume their oil, then they need to kick in their share to the government (rather than political campaigns) for the maintenance and upkeep of the nation's infrastructure, which has secured their "competitive" advantage for nearly a century.
Otherwise, the ingratitude is intolerable.