Whose Side Is Congress On ?
Posted March 2nd, 2008 by Da King
The price of oil is at an all-time high, having recently reached $105 per barrel. As a result, we are paying more for gasoline at the pump than ever before. Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, continually blame the high price on George W. Bush, as if Bush personally sets the market price, or as if Bush policies drive up the cost of oil (and Dems do have at least one point there: war). You hear a lot of talk from Democrats about Bush having buddies in the oil industry, or Bush being a former oilman himself. What you don't hear from Democrats is how THEIR policies have consistently driven up the price of oil, have inhibited the production of domestic oil, have resulted in america importing more oil from foreign countries, have driven up our trade deficit, and have funded our enemies. Such Democratic policies include: forbidding drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), forbidding offshore drilling increases, imposing so many regulations that no new oil refineries have been built since the 1970's, high taxes on gasoline, a virtual ban on more nuclear energy……
And now the Democrats are at it again, seeking to drive up the price of gas and home heating oil by imposing $18 billion more in taxes on american oil companies via the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Axt of 2008 (H.R. 5351), which passed the House last week. Those additional taxes and removal of subsidies will undoubtedly translate directly to higher prices at the pump for you and I, and will hit the pocketbooks of the poor and working class the hardest. You remember the poor and the working class, don't you ? Those are the ones Democrats claim to help. Maybe Obama can explain this "help" in his next speech about hope and change and unity. When I heard Obama talk about "taking away the profits of Exxon-Mobil" to raucous applause at YSU a couple weeks ago, he left out the part about the resultant higher prices at the pump. I wonder if the crowd would have applauded had Obama told the truth and said, "I'm going to make you all pay through the nose for oil because there MIGHT be global warming". I think not, but that's why he's a politician. Yes we can (destroy the country).
In addition, H.R. 5351 only raises taxes on companies that drill and refine oil in the United States (Exxon, BP, Conoco-Philips, Shell, Chevron), so CITGO, the personal ATM machine of Venezuelan leftist coca-head Hugo Chavez, is exempted and receives a 6 percent advantage over the american companies. I'm sure that will do a lot to reduce our foreign oil dependence. NOT. On the bright side, it has been a week or two since Chavez last threatened to stop selling oil to the U.S.A.
Here's Nancy Pelosi and company making a statement about H.R. 5351, in a stunning example of up-is-down speech:
"With the price of oil above $100 a barrel, this Congress is again taking action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and support the domestic production of renewable energy…Already pinched at the pump, American families are now feeling the effects of higher energy prices throughout the economy. This legislation is another critical step in a series of concrete actions this Congress is taking to address soaring energy costs, grow our economy and create new jobs, strengthen national security, and begin to reduce global warming."
Pelosi is actually pretending these new taxes will reduce energy costs ! She left out the part where the reduced energy costs won't happen until maybe the year 2025, if ever. This leads me to another point. Why do Democrats keep insisting they are going to create millions and millions of new "green" jobs ? Since when does the government create jobs, other than government jobs ? The private sector is where all the "green" jobs would be created. There is already an enormous market for "green" jobs. Pretty much all the government has to do is get the hell out of the way. Maybe offer some tax breaks as incentives for the new technologies. Huge tax increases is the last thing the government should be doing here, the last thing the government should be doing now, with the price of oil already the highest ever and the country on the edge of a recession.
Bush has threatened to veto this legislation. When he does, I'm sure the Democrats and the media will portray him as being in the pocket of big oil. You can count on that.
In other news from the House of Representatives, 3 post offices were named and two inaugural balls were scheduled last week. The Protect America Act is still unaddressed, hampering our intelligence gathering capabilities against suspected terrorists. Maybe, in another example of up-is-down speech, Pelosi can call a press conference to say that means "americans are safer from terrorism". Oh wait, she already did that.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Perhaps you could expand the title of this article to include, "Whose Side is the Pentagon On". I hope every voter in Ohio noted the award Friday by the Pentagon of a contract to replace this nation's aging KC-135 air re-fueling fleet to the French led consortium, EADS, parent of Airbus. If you recall, beginning in 2001, Senator John McCain was instrumental in having the contract previously awarded to Boeing, pulled from a budget appropriation since there wasn't any competitive bidding, and his actions resulted in the Boeing/Pentagon scandal. A spokesperson for Boeing stated Friday, this contract award would result in the closure of the Boeing 767 production and the loss of potential jobs of more than 9,000 Americans. The good news, EADS announced it would be opening an assembly location to assemble the foreign made parts in Alabama, resulting in 1,000 high tech jobs for Americans. Think about possible future implications. What happens if the French or other European nations where parts are going to be manufactured have one of their infamous labor strikes. No parts available. America's air re-fueling fleet shut down. French government turns against the U.S. and decides to withhold parts or support. At least the French government will have part of their subsidies given to Airbus replenished by the American taxpayers. Way to go John McCain. You have helped save France.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Come on King you know the answer. They are on their side and we ae just the audience. We pay for the tickets to the "big time rassling" show and take our seat in the stands. They come out and argue and wrestle. We root for our favorites and argue with others in the stands. After the show they go backstage laugh,slap each other on the back, count the money and plan the next show which will be even bigger and more exciting than the last.
Everybody wins. They get increased power and wealth the mainstream media increases its power and wealth by hyping the show 24/7 and the public is promised a better future at no cost or sacrifice.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Well put, Fred.
The political class is for the political class.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Those rassling tickets are getting awfully expensive, fred.
I wonder if politicians are always saying 'this election is about the future' because, if we look at the past too long, we might string them up.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
GC, I am sitting out here in Kansas wondering if you tell the whole story about the new tanker planes. In Wichita where they really thought several thousand new jobs would be created if the Boeing company got the contract they say that EADS promises 20,000 new American jobs. Now that speaks about a consolation prize for the anticipated 45,000 new ones. Also, they say that there is no proof that there will be any of the promised jobs in this country.
Anyway, I saw King talking about what is going on now at all the Democrat rallies with the campaign promises, you know like Obama bad mouthing NAFTA in Ohio and his adviser telling Canadians that that kind of talk is just campaign rhetoric. When do they start telling some truth? After they get elected or like Pelosi when she dies of old age, since she is so far left she needs help to keep her feet when walking and the people she represents are at least that far left?
What I am wondering is which of the Democrat promises is involved in the loss of a contract to a French company by an American company? It seems to me that you want to blame McCain for that whole thing dateing back to 2001 and King is talking about what Democrats are promising now both on the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate and right there in Ohio at this very minute as I listen to Hillary spread her crap in Toledo. She keeps talking about needing a Clinton to clean up after the Bushes and I wonder if she knows about cleaning up after Clintons.
I think King has just told us why people are talking about $4.00+ gasoline and it seems to be that new Energy?? Bill that the House has just passed. Try to hide things like that behind this new Pentagon contract letting but you can't hide it for long as the price of gasoline will soon be at the level Democrats are saying Bush has mandated. I agree with King that the mandate for higher priced gasoline has been ordered by the House of Representatives. What will we do without Bush to veto crap laws like this one? I guess we have to vote for McCain when the time comes to try to maintain that veto against the tax and spend people who control Congress now.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
GC is right. We should eliminate competitive bidding at the federal level no matter how scandalous it becomes.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:27 am
King: You are a propagandist….sometimes….like this time.
"Since when does the government create jobs, other than government jobs ?"
Think Halliburton. Think Blackwater. If that isn't job creation…..then what is it?
What you meant to say was…."other than military related jobs"…right? You, with your libertarian leanings, only believe jobs can be created by government in wartime. Thus, the reason the neo-cons want war all the time.
In additon, weren't there jobs created by government during FDR's time? I thought so. Oh, but those were government jobs , right? You know, jobs rebuilding American infrastructure, yeah, government jobs, yeah.
Your take on Pelosi's stance is not exactly correct either. Taking part of the windfall profits from bloated energy companies and investing it in new energy, not only will create jobs, (it's silly to argue otherwise), but also will eventually lead to lower fuel costs. You're the one who believes unflinchingly in the market….until you don't. I think what you really are advocating for, at least in this post, is a continuation of the status quo….more of the same. More of the same windfall profits from a monopolistic industry. More corporate welfare for those companies. More cutting of regulations or limitations on these, the fattest of all fat.
You're argument is similar to the objections to CAFE standards back in the 70's. CAFE standards, put in place by a Democratic president, naturally, worked. Is there even a doubt about that? Back then, folks arguing in the same way you are doing now, also preached doom and gloom. They were wrong then too.
Since McDonald, however, and for some unknown reason, nothing limiting or changing our behaviour concerning energy use has been allowed on the table. You know, huge monied interests to be protected and all.
Conservative leaders during my lifetime have been just like spoiled rotten children demanding to have the cake as well as eating it. It's time for the selfish childish conservative movement to grow up.