Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Daily Caller

‘A Tough Place To Do Business’: Chevron Exec Details Company’s Decision To Move HQ Out Of California

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

 

A top Chevron executive detailed his company’s decision to move its headquarters out of California in a Thursday roundtable with reporters.

Andy Walz, president of Chevron Americas products, said that California’s crusade against conventional energy producers played a role in the company’s decision to move its headquarters to Texas. Measures like California’s 2035 ban on internal combustion engine vehicles and its emissions cap-and-trade rules were specific headwinds that played a role in the company’s decision to move its headquarters to Houston, Walz said.

“It is a difficult place to do business. It’s a difficult place to be headquartered. And we finally said, ‘Hey, that’s enough. We’ve got critical mass, we’re gonna move.’ We’re also going to improve our performance by getting everybody in the same location,” Walz explained.

Walz made clear that part of the reason for Chevron’s headquarters relocation is that parts of its operations and senior leadership have already been stationed in Texas, and that the company believes its performance can improve if employees and executives are in the same place. The company is not walking away from its assets in California, andChevron plans to continue operating them into the future, Walz said.

“California is a tough place to do business. It’s a tough place to recruit people. It’s a tough place to move employees. A lot of our employees move up through the company, they gain experiences in different geographies, different locations, and we have a lot of people that will not move to California. That makes it difficult,” Walz said. “California is a tough place to have a big employee base. It’s tough, its cost of living is expensive, and we were not able to get employees that didn’t live there to move there. And that’s not sustainable for us, to be honest.”

California has the third-highest cost of living of all states, trailing only Hawaii and Massachusetts, Forbes Magazine assessed in July. Overall, California has seen net outflows of population in recent years, with more than 800,000 people moving out of the state in 2022 alone, according to Forbes.

Additionally, more than 350 companies moved their headquarters out of the state between 2018 and 2022, according to Forbes.

“California has said, ‘Hey, you cannot buy a new car that has an internal combustion engine in it after 2035.’ So, that’s a headwind against investing in a refinery. On the books, they have a windfall profits tax or penalty, they’re evaluating how to deal with that, they want to cap the amount of profits you can make in your refinery. That is a headwind for anybody that would want to put money into it to try to get a return on their investment,” Walz said. “And the third thing that maybe is even a bit more crippling is this: they have a program called cap and trade, where they tax your CO2 emissions in the state of California. And that tax continues to go up every year, and it gets more burdensome every single year. So those three regulations, those three policies, really make it hard for me to want to put more capital into the state of California. Therefore, I think the business case there is really challenging.”

“Our competitors are looking at the exact same equation I’m looking at, and our money is going other places, and California can’t get supplied from Houston,” Walz said. “It doesn’t work.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized tailpipe emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles — which have been characterized by critics as an “EV mandate” — are another policy that Walz believes will have “consequences” if implemented.

Walz’s comments on the business environment in California echo Chevron CEO Mike Wirth’s recent remarks to The Wall Street Journal, in which he said that “California has a number of policies that raise costs, that hurt consumers.”

As news of Chevron’s headquarters relocation broke earlier in August, the office of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the company’s decision was the “logical culmination of a long process that has repeatedly been foreshadowed by Chevron.”

conflict

With Only Months Left In Term, Biden Is Starting To Run Out Of Options In Russia-Ukraine War

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jake Smith

 

As the clock ticks down to January — the end of President Joe Biden’s sole term — the Biden-Harris administration is trying to figure out how to aid Ukraine against Russia with limited and dwindling options.

The Russia-Ukraine war has dragged on for more than two years, and though the Biden administration has devoted over $175 billion in economic and military aid to help Ukraine, it has done little to shift the tides in Kyiv’s favor. The Biden administration, unlikely to receive any more funding for aid from Congress, is looking at alternative choices including loosening weapons restrictions and allowing Ukraine to strike further inside of Russia, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The new policy would only apply to European and other Western weapons, not U.S. systems, according to multiple reports. Secretary of State Antony Blinken hinted on Wednesday that such a move was on the table and strongly being considered.

Lifting the restrictions would represent a major shift in approach from the Biden administration, which has been wary of allowing Ukraine to use Western-provided weapons for deep strikes inside Russia up to this point.

But Ukraine is likely to want more from the Biden administration than being allowed to use European weapons for long-range strikes. Specifically, Ukraine wants to use American-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike Russia, given the high quality and range of the system, though the administration may be more unlikely to grant that request.

Besides loosening weapons restrictions, the administration has few other options. Though Biden was able to sign off on a congressionally approved $60 billion aid package for Ukraine in April, Congress isn’t expected to grant any more funding for the war between now and January, limiting the amount of assistance the administration can provide.

The Russia-Ukraine war has largely stalled out, with neither side conceding substantial territory to the other, although Ukrainian forces have recently made a surprising incursion into southern Russia and captured hundreds of miles of territory.

“They see this as part of their strategy to defend themselves, to develop leverage,” the senior administration told the WSJ.

Behind closed doors, however, administration officials are worried that Ukraine is dedicating too many forces to the incursion and stretching thin its forces trying to hold the front line against Russia, according to the WSJ. Russian forces have also begun a counteroffensive against Ukrainians spearheading an incursion, risking further escalation in the war.

Biden’s top aides realize the odds that Ukraine can secure a military victory against Russia by January are near zero, according to the WSJ. The Biden administration is not pressuring Kyiv to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, even though some lawmakers and national security experts believe that is the only way to end the war.

Instead, the administration is choosing to let Kyiv dictate war plans and “improve Ukraine’s strategic position to the greatest extent possible between now and the end of the term,” one senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the matter, told the WSJ.

The Biden administration has been under scrutiny for its handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, with critics fearing that there is no strategy to end the war or push Ukraine toward a military victory, which itself seems unlikely. The U.S. has slowly become more involved in the war but it has done little to move the needle while Ukraine’s manpower continues to be exhausted.

The administration’s strategy “sounds an awful lot like a recipe for another endless war [because it is] unable to send enough weapons to make a decisive difference on the battlefield, and they don’t have a clear sense of what the endgame should be,” Rachel Rizzo, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the WSJ.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

$40 million weekly cash shipments from US are stabilizing Afghanistan’s Taliban government

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Rep. Tim Burchett

 

It is common knowledge that the Afghanistan withdrawal was a complete disaster, but lots of people do not know that the Biden administration has been sending cash to the Taliban every week since then.

When the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, our troops were ordered to leave behind $7 billion worth of military equipment which ended up in the hands of the Taliban. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the Taliban also likely gained access to approximately $57.6 million in funds that the United States had provided to the former Afghan government. But that was just the beginning of the financial atrocities.

“According to an August 2023 World Bank report, the UN has purchased, transported, and transferred $2.9 billion in U.S. currency to Afghanistan since August 2021,” said a SIGAR report published in January. “This included $1.8 billion provided in 2022 and $1.1 billion provided in 2023, as of August 2023.”

“The U.S. is the largest international donor to Afghanistan, having provided about $2.6 billion in funding to the UN, other international organizations (PIOs), and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operating in Afghanistan since August 2021,” said the SIGAR report.

The U.N., which handles the transportation of these payments, claims it needs to send cash because the country does not have the infrastructure to wire funds.

I recently hosted a guest on my podcast who goes by the name of “Legend” to talk about these payments. He is an Afghan American and former U.S. Army noncommissioned officer who has deployed to Afghanistan multiple times, and who traveled to Kabul during the Afghanistan withdrawal to rescue individuals left behind.

Legend confirmed: “Yes, the money does end up feeding and supporting the Taliban.” He explained that the United Nations flies the cash from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan Central Bank which is managed by a terrorist who is on an active U.S. sanctions list. That bank then holds an “auction” where groups bid to take those dollars and convert it to the local currency. Every week the winner of that auction is someone associated with the Haqqani Network, a terror group with ties to Al-Qaeda.

These terrorists take the money and convert it to Afghani to distribute. Some of that money stays with the Haqqani Network, some goes to the terrorists running the bank, and the rest of the money is given to the local implementing parties or non-government organizations (NGOs).

However, the Taliban is the group handing out NGO licenses in Afghanistan. If a Taliban sympathizer asks for an NGO license, they get it. So, many of these groups send money directly to the Taliban or to support the families of suicide bombers.

Legend also said if the United States suspended these weekly payments, we would see signs of the Taliban and other Afghanistan-based terror groups crumbling within a year. The $40 million weekly cash shipments have stabilized the Afghani, making the Taliban’s newly printed currency the world’s best performer, beating the U.S. dollar in September 2023.

It is not like this administration doesn’t know who they’re dealing with. President Joe Biden was a senator and Vice President Kamala Harris was an attorney in the 1990s when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist. During that time, women were stripped of their rights and treated as prisoners, and the Taliban provided safe haven to al-Qaeda in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

When the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 2021, their spokesperson said: “Nobody will be harmed in Afghanistan. Of course, there is a huge difference between us now and 20 years ago.” It was a laughable statement, and no sane person should have believed it. Terrorists don’t change.

The Taliban’s return to oppression started slow. First, they banned women from driving more than 45 miles without a male relative. Then they stopped them from going to school. Then they banned women’s faces and voices from being displayed in public, and prohibited women from looking at men they are not related to. These women are now prisoners in their own country as much as they were in the 1990s. And we are funding their oppressors.

The fact that a single penny of American tax dollars has ended up in the hands of terrorists is a disgrace. I introduced a bill that would do three things to stop it:

First, my bill states the policy of the United States is to oppose support to the Taliban. It also calls for a report on any foreign countries that have given support to the Taliban and calls for the secretary of State to develop a strategy to discourage foreign countries from providing support. Second, it calls for a report on cash assistance programs in Afghanistan and the safeguards in place to prevent the Taliban from accessing it. Third, it requires a report on the Afghan Fund and the Afghanistan central bank and what controls are in place to make sure those funds are not diverted or misused.

The House passed my bill earlier this year, but unfortunately the Senate won’t vote on it. This should be a bipartisan issue, and we need to keep pushing for it.

Many people lost everything because of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Women lost their freedom, Afghan citizens lost their lives, and 13 U.S. servicemembers were killed. One of those servicemembers was my constituent, Army Staff Sgt. Ryan Knauss. He had recently finished a deployment in Afghanistan when he heard we were evacuating and he volunteered to go back to help. He was 23 years old when he was killed.

We need to honor their sacrifice as best as we can. That starts by halting the payments we have been sending to the Taliban. No more American money for terrorists.

Rep. Tim Burchett has represented Tennessee’s 2nd District in the U.S. House of Representatives since January 2019. Prior to that he served for eight years as mayor of Knox County, 12 years in the state senate and four years in the state house.

Continue Reading

Trending

X