The time for partisan bickering just ended. This is as serious as a heart attack. Obama is going to spend so much money, which he intends to get from China via the sale of government backed bonds, that the Chinese apparently don't think he'll be able to make good on them.
So President Obama gave the Chinese eminent domain rights to American land and businesses as collateral - i.e. we don't pay, they now own America.
#4
Possession is nine tenths of the law. The possessors are armed. China could try to take possession, as could Obama, but it's not going to happen. Besides, T-bills and Treasury bonds are backed by the full faith of the U.S. government, not by real property, just as our currency is not backed by gold.
Not to mention that the article is speculation rather than reportage. There are too many real things to worry about these days -- I'll give this one a miss.
#7
Heck, I'm in favor of the western States demanding their land back from the federals. It's not their land, they had and have no authority to take it.
How times change. For the past eight years, Lafayette Square, directly in front of the White House, was littered with liberal protesters. But with a Democrat in office, it's the Republicans' turn now.
Roughly one hundred protesters gathered there Friday afternoon to launch their own conservative revolution with a modern-day Boston Tea Party.
"We have to do what the blacks did in the civil rights movement," said Randy Michaux, a protester from Virginia. "What we need is something like the Million Man March."
Judging by the crowd on Friday, that's a long way off. And as Michaux himself observed, "Small groups like this don't mean nothing,"
The idea for this protest came about after CNBC's Rick Santelli called for a new tea party during a rant on the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange. Conservative groups took up the call and now protests like this have been popping up across the country; this one was organized by some of those groups, along with the American Spectator.
Though the event's planners described the tea party as a non-partisan event, the crowd appeared to be largely Republican, a mix of pin-stripe suit types in town for the Conservative Political Action Conference and people who'd come in for the day Maryland and Virginia. But while the protesters' dress codes may have differed, they were at least united by their hatred of government intervention.
The real Boston Tea Party actually came in response to a tax-cut -- the British government cut tea tariffs for the East India Company in the colonies, allowing them to lower their prices and undercut American merchants. That, however, was lost on the crowd Friday, which might not have shared its predecessor's views on taxation but had a similar revolutionary fervor. One of the stars of the show, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, even greeted the crowd by saying "Hello fellow rebels!"
Malkin, a speaker at the event, was met in turn with cheers from protesters wielding signs like "Don't tread on me" and "Say no to Porkulus." Another, held by a little girl, read, "Don't tax what I haven't earned."
One after another, the speakers attacked federal bailouts and increased taxation. Even Joe the Plumber was there, adding to the chorus of outrage.
"We're here for one reason and one reason only," event organizer J. Peter Freire, of the American Spectator, told the crowd. "The government has gotten too big."
Speaking to Salon after the protest, Freire said the tea parties had harnessed the genuine anger over government intervention. "I've gotten 4,000 emails through the website," he said. "These are people who have jobs and kids but they took time off to come today because this has really tapped into something."
Freire also said that the protesters had not assembled to criticize a particular party or politician because Democrats and Republicans alike were to blame for "fiscal recklessness."
Still, anyone on the scene couldn't help but notice the angry shouts of "socialist" and "Marxist" whenever Obama's name was mentioned. Indeed, many of the protesters had harsh words for the president.
"I don't believe he's my commander-in-chief," said Maryland resident Kathy Fuller. "People are afraid. I'm buying durable goods, because in five years there won't be companies to make them and inflation will be too high to buy them." Fuller added that the GOP is not "the party of 'no,'" and does have constructive ideas -- but, she said, the mainstream media keeps them from the public.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/28/2009 12:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Watched some of this on the tely. Appears to be a bunch of Wallstreet lobbyists and angry WASP, top 2 percenters, aka ememies of change, the people, etc. Rahm had better call the detail, get the Suburban gassed up and the mini-gun oiled and ready. Barry may want to drive over and meet with these elitist vermin.
#3
Certainly true for me. The Chicago Tea Party was 11 am Friday -- right in the middle of a busy clinic session for me. No way I could have gone but I was there in spirit.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/28/2009 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Found out about this through Michelle Malkin site, noon yesterday. She mentioned 'Chuck Simmins' site for the list of 'Parties'. Here is the "Link" to his page.
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
02/28/2009 17:47 Comments ||
Top||
#5
EMT Chuck was a frequent and loved commenter here after 9/11, but tapered off due to developing his own site. He's missed here, but his work is always top-notch
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/28/2009 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget came under criticism from an unexpected source yesterday - Sen. Kent Conrad, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who vowed to give the spending plan a "thorough scrubbing."
The blast from within the ranks of Obama's own party comes as Congress is girding for battle over the budget document - which pays for health reform, clean energy and other programs with $1 trillion in tax hikes over the next decade. "I am concerned about the long-term buildup of debt," the North Dakota senator told CNBC. "I'm especially concerned about the second five years of this budget. I don't think it goes far enough in a plan to reduce our long-term debt. So I think that requires additional work."
Conrad - who was one of the first senators to endorse Obama for president - took aim at a controversial plan to raise more than $300 billion in revenue by lowering the tax deductions wealthy filers can claim. "I can assure you that is going to have a lot of attention as we seek to alter the president's budget so that it can get passed, so that it can get implemented and so that it really works for this economy," Conrad said. "I would put that high on the list of things that will be given a thorough scrubbing and may well not survive."
Another Democratic senator also expressed concern about Obama's budget. "While President Obama inherited much of the deficit he's battling, his budget has eye-popping numbers, and its size and scope concern me," said Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who helped broker a deal on the stimulus package.
The budget calls for publicly held debt of 65 percent of gross domestic product in 2010 - a jump of 24 percentage points. By 2019, debt would be 67 percent of GDP, totaling $15 trillion. "The problem is that this country's become addicted to debt," said David Walker, CEO of the Peterson Foundation, a fiscal watchdog.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/28/2009 11:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
North Dakota is not San Francisco. Conrad has to worry about sane voters.
Senator Kirstin Gillibrand is under fire from conservatives for changing her positions on several major issues since being chosen by Governor Paterson to replace Hillary Clinton.
Gillibrand had earned a reputation as a moderate Democrat from upstate, but this week she frustrated the NRA by changing her mind about a bill to make it easier to trace gun purchases.
The National Rifle Association used to love Kirstin Gillibrand, but on the day she was selected to join the Senate, downstate politicians predicted she would change positions on guns.
"I'm confident that as Kirsten comes to see the cities of the state, and sees the problem of gun violence, her views will evolve to reflect the whole state, and that is part of the process," Senator Chuck Schumer said.
Chuckie spoke and Kirstin jumped ...
This week Gillibrand earned a headline as a flip flopper on guns by opposing a bill that she sponsored just eight months ago.
Mike Centola of nyfirearms.com was disappointed. He'd welcomed the selection of Gillibrand, but now he wonders if she ever truly valued gun rights. He said, "I think it should be very important to her...if she's claiming to represent upstate gun enthusiasts, that she stick to that and not say one thing and then do something different."
According to Gillibrand's spokespersons, she didn't understand the gun legislation she sponsored last year.
Unfortunately I can believe that ...
Her office says she is still a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, but felt this particular bill limited Washington D.C.'s ability to regulate itself.
Freshmen Congressman Eric Massa says he will not change his mind on guns. In his statement Friday, he said simply, "I will not support new federal gun control legislation."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/28/2009 11:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I have strong principles, that I will change often"
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/28/2009 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
As a representative of an upstate district she 'represented' their position by voting in favor of gun owner rights. Now she is a Senator and 'represents' the whole state, and as a whole the state opposes gun owner rights, so that's how she votes. Is she supposed to vote her personal preferences or to vote representing the preferences of her constituency? It is a fundamental question of how our system works.
#4
as GH9014, either she's reversed her lifelong take on the Constitutional protections of the 2nd amendment, and the slippery slope, or she's an opportunistic political whore. It would be different if she said: "I support gun ownership, but my mind could be changed if polls told me otherwise to get reelected". At least then, she would be truthful. But then she wouldn't be a Democrat, would she?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/28/2009 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Gun owners as a group cannot be content to hold a static defense on gun rights. The have to be assertive in improving and increasing their rights.
For example, if a group of parents created a gun club for children, I have no doubts that the anti-gunners would accuse them of "child abuse", and try to stop it. This is an outgrowth of schools having a zero tolerance policy to even mentioning guns--which should also be challenged.
Another example would be to encourage judges to *require* training and the carrying of weapons in public by people who are at risk for violence, especially abused women. There is incredible demand for protection for such women, far beyond the ability of the authorities to provide. Therefore, they must protect themselves. A court order to be armed is an effective "nudge" to get them to do this.
SPRINGFIELD Sen. Roland Burris took aim at Attorney General Lisa Madigan on Friday, disputing her opinion that Illinois lawmakers could legally set a special election to replace the states embattled junior senator.
Weighing in for the first time on Madigans mid-week opinion, Burris lawyer Timothy W. Wright III said her opinion is incorrect and federal election laws trump the attorney generals argument. Sen. Burris position is clear: The General Assembly will violate clearly established federal law if it creates a special election, Wright wrote Madigan in a letter released by Burris office Friday.
Asking Madigan to reconsider her opinion, Wright went on to note the potential cost of a special election, estimated at as much as $50 million. I encourage you to take a second look at your analysis before the General Assembly wastes millions of dollars on an unlawful election, Wright wrote.
The move marks the clearest sign yet that Burris is poised to wage a legal battle against any legislative efforts to wrest away his position amid growing calls for his resignation.
Gov. Quinn has been pushing for a special election, but Democrats at the Statehouse have been reticent to take up a cause that could well trigger a racially-tinged backlash against the party for helping unseat the U.S. Senates only African-American member.
Senate Democrats placed two bills that would provide for special elections in a subcommittee Thursday, which is the legislative equivalent of putting the idea on ice. In the House, Democrats are split on the question and House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) has ignored repeated Republican attempts to push special-election legislation.
The attorney general's office said Burris' lawyers' argument is flawed. "The legal analysis in his letter does not apply to the current circumstances," Madigan spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said of Wright's letter. "Because President Barack Obama vacated the U.S. Senate seat, the 17th Amendment controls and allows the vacancy to be filled by an election as the Legislature may direct."
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gov. Quinn has been pushing for a special election, but Democrats at the Statehouse have been reticent to take up a cause that could well trigger a racially-tinged backlash against the party for helping unseat the U.S. Senate's only African-American member.
So they admit that skin color trumps the law and justice. And they also admit that Blacks bloc-vote on the basis of skin color, i.,e. that blacks are racist.
#2
Gov. Quinn has been pushing for a special election, but Democrats at the Statehouse have been reticent to take up a cause that could well trigger a racially-tinged backlash against the party for helping unseat the U.S. Senate's only African-American member.
Could also "trigger" a Republican victory. Hang on Senator! The lower the Dem bow goes on the waterline, the better the Republican chances for victory.
#6
"The lower the Dem bow goes on the waterline, the better the Republican chances for victory"
In Illinois, the bow would have to be about 300-fathoms deep for the 'Machine' not to work it's "Election Majik".
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
02/28/2009 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Is Burris the ONLY ONE in Illinois who has read the US Constitution? Quinn has flip flopped on special elections so often it is hard to keep track of todays position, the Dems KNOW they will not only loose a special election but are looking at an election slaughter in the next election, and the Chicago Inner City Dems want a Senate seat as an Affirmative Action Perq... And this mentality is now running the United States!
(KTVI - FOX2now.com) - Angry taxpayers re-enacted the Boston Tea Party on the banks of the Mississippi River Friday in downtown St. Louis. Their message: Congress is taxing future generations for today's economic mess. The protesters tossed loose tea into the muddy water cheering as the wind blew it away from the levee.
The stimulus bill, the bailout plans and proposed tax hikes drew the ire of demonstrators who describe themselves as fiscal conservatives and not necessarily Republicans. A crowd of some 400 people stood on the steps of the Gateway Arch as speakers criticized Congress for rushing approval of the nearly eight billion dollar economic relief package. One of the rally's organizers, conservative blogger Bill Hennessy of Ballwin said, "We're trying to preserve the Republic and you can't do that when you're borrowing trillions of dollars every week from China."
Pam Grow of Rolla fears government has become too large. "I have four children ages 14 through 28 and I'm concerned that my children and their children will never dig their way out from underneath this enormous spending," she said.
A former aide to Senator Jim Talent, Shamed Dogan of Ballwin believes politicians in Washington have mortgaged the future of America's children. "I have worked in Congress so I understand usually with this kind of legislation if you are considering anything this huge, it has to go through a lot of scrutiny," Dogan explained. "But with this legislation hardly anyone seems to have read it."
Demonstrators also criticized President Obama's plan to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. They fear such action will hurt small to medium sized businesses by taking funds that would be used to expand the business and hire more workers. "Small business, that's a sole proprietorship, you can have 250 thousand dollars in income and you're paying that back out in the business; you're paying employees; you're paying for the business with that," said Hennessy.
St. Louis Attorney Ed Martin, who once served as former Governor Matt Blunt's chief of staff, thinks the Democratic Party leadership failed the country. He thinks only a small portion of the nearly $800 billion stimulus bill will actually produce new jobs.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/28/2009 11:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Hundreds of people gathered in the pouring rain at the state Capitol to protest the multi-billion dollar federal stimulus package signed by President Barack Obama. Protesters chanted, "Take back America," and held signs against bailouts. Another protester held a U.S. Navy Jack with the rattlesnake and the words, "Don't Tread on Me."
Protests across the country have sprung up today, inspired by Rick Santelli of CNBC, who stood on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade last week and went on a spontaneous on-air rant against Pres. Obama's proposed mortgage bailout. Santelli mentioned holding a tea party to protest the idea, like the Boston Tea Party, when colonists protested unjust taxation from England.
The idea has taken a life of its own, and Friday, about 200 protesters showed up in Atlanta, some with tea bags, to protest the stimulus bill and other bailouts.
"My concern is that this country is going down a dangerous path toward socialism and that's not what my forefathers, or my ancestors, fought and died for," said protester Allen LaBerteaux, 41, of Lilburn. He had two tea bags in his pocket.
The state employee went to the Capitol in the cold rain to register his opposition to the stimulus bill, which he sees as irresponsible spending by the federal government.
Supporters say the $787 billion stimulus package is designed to jump-start the economy with public works construction, new jobs and tax cuts for millions of Americans.
Protesters at the Capitol handed out One Trillion dollar bills with the faces of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).
Now there's an idea ...
State Republican politicians lined up to speak in the rain, including gubernatorial hopefuls Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine and Rep. Austin Scott (R-Tifton).
State Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) also spoke, urging the crowd to find socialists in office and "kick them out." "Let's go after them," Rogers said, to cheers from the crowd.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/28/2009 11:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Another protester held a U.S. Navy Jack with the rattlesnake and the words, "Don't Tread on Me.""
That's probably not the "Navy Jeck", its the likely Gadsden flag.
While most Californians lament that the state is broke and many criticize a broken system, an organization formed primarily by agricultural interests seeks to break up the state. Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries (CSCFI) have proposed dividing California into a primarily coastal state and a primarily inland state.
The eastern portion would include 45 counties, including San Diego and Orange, while the western portion would cover 13 counties between the Los Angeles basin and the Bay Area.
"We'll be able to manage what kind of revenue we're getting," said CSCFI chief executive officer and president Bill Maze.
Maze, who lives in Visalia, has seen the impact of the state's problems both from county and state government positions. He was in the California State Assembly from 2002 to 2008 and spent the previous 10 years on the Tulare County Board of Supervisors. "They [the state] hold local government -- cities, counties, and other special districts -- hostage," he said.
Maze saw a polarization of political parties while in the state legislature and also saw the results of a redistricting process intended to preserve incumbents rather than to represent citizens.
His Assembly district was the largest geographic state Assembly, House of Representatives, or House of Delegates district in the continental United States. It covered 33,000 square miles including Highway 99 through the San Joaquin Valley, Twenty-Nine Palms and part of Lake Havasu and reached both the Nevada and Arizona state borders.
The passage of Proposition 11 in last November's election may mitigate some of the gerrymandering of legislative districts, but Maze feels that the political process is still present. "We've all had these little 'plans' to fix how we design the districts," he said. "All of them still have political input into them."
Those who represent large geographical districts often complain not only about the relative lack of political power compared to urban legislators but also about their inability to represent a variety of constituencies. The diverse state constituency is seen as a need for two separate states.
"To me the final straw that broke the camel's back was the passage of Proposition 2," Maze said.
Prop. 2 addressed the housing conditions of poultry. Animal rights activists saw Prop. 2 as improving the welfare of agricultural birds while farmers doubt they can remain economically competitive with imported egg production. "They're going to put them out of business in California and we will lose tens and tens of thousands of jobs," Maze said.
Although Prop. 2 passed on a statewide basis, it was rejected in 41 of California's 58 counties. "You have these kind of voting numbers of basically agriculturally uneducated city dwellers," Maze said. "That's the way we see this thing."
The split would likely make the eastern portion of California a politically conservative state while making the coastal area a liberal state. The general conservative politics of San Diego and Orange counties, along with strong agricultural economies, led to the placement of those coastal counties into the eastern state. "It's all the agricultural base of it as well as what has been more rational commonsense thinking," Maze said.
Ironically, the type of conservative politics in the two states could be different.
While urban conservatives often focus on social issues, rural conservatives place more emphasis on local government, and water issues are also more important in the decisions of rural voters and legislators. While that would give the western remnant an agricultural college, Yolo County and the University of California Davis would be part of the eastern state, as would Fresno State University, University of California Merced, Cal Poly Pomona, and University of California Riverside.
"We can be very self-sustaining, self-supporting," Maze said.
Maze also noted that the retention of the Port of San Diego, as well as river-accessible ports in Stockton and Sacramento, would allow for commercial transportation to the mostly inland state.
The deficit of the Los Angeles basin and the Bay Area wouldn't be the problem of the eastern state. "They're getting the lion's share of the state budget as well as having almost exclusive control of what the outcomes are," Maze said.
The current population of what would be the coastal state is approximately 18.4 million while the population of the 45 counties slated for the primarily inland state totals approximately 19.6 million.
Maze isn't averse to a unicameral legislature for the new state (currently Nebraska is the only state with only one legislative chamber) and feels that a part-time legislature is a possibility in the eastern state. "We ought to be thinking about how we change the whole legislature up there," he said.
The proposed new state does not yet have a specific name, although Grand California has been mentioned as well as East California.
CSCFI had a booth at a farm show in Tulare in February and between 5,000 and 6,000 people dropped by on February 10.
Maze noted that the response in the San Joaquin Valley is approximately 95 percent supportive.
CSCFI will utilize an initiative ballot measure to divide the state. "You think this legislature in California is going to get anything done?" Maze said. "This will be by the initiative process."
The initiative, if sufficient petition signatures are collected, will likely be on the 2012 ballot. "It takes a long process here," Maze said.
The actual petition process timeline could place the initiative on a 2010 ballot, but CSCFI will hold seminars and other educational forums throughout 2009.
Individuals will be identified to be county coordinators in each county; at this time no San Diego County or Riverside County coordinator has been identified. The outreach will extend to other business groups in addition to the agricultural origin.
"People can really think about it," Maze said. "Let's really create some change to this state."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/28/2009 10:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The "Western State" folks will go ape-sh*t because a huge chunk of California's tax revenue (and food and water) (and socioeconomic victims 'we need to help' - in words only) comes from the "Eastern State". The Pacific Coastal Commission would be a good first place to look to find their new bureaucracy.
Plus, they won't be able to legislate how the "Easterners" can do business anymore.
The "Westerners" could locate their new capital to Richmond and empathize with the folks there.
This I'm sure is not going to happen, but it's actually not the absolute worst idea I've heard to date.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
02/28/2009 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Western Californistan, more commonly referred to as the Caza Strip. Make it so!
#6
I'm in "eastern California" and I'd love to see this happen, but it never will. Just for starters, the sate is too incompetent to even go through the process of splitting itself. It's not even comptetent enough to carry out sentences on its death row inmates. An inmate on death row has far greater odds of dying from old age, than from execution. Perhaps when the state finally implodes into bankruptcy, something can happen. There's gotta be a better name than "Eastern California", though. Perhaps "Free California" would be better.
#7
The usual proposal is Northern California wants the counties north of Bakersfield and Southern California wants the counties south of Bakersfield. Nobody seems to want Bakersfield.
#8
Split it int three states if not four. Then, two of them, Bay Area and LA, would have to start housing all the criminals they produce instead of exporting them to civilized areas.
On Thursday, the White House released its federal budget proposal--declaring war on United States energy producers. Though somewhat anticipated, there are a number of tax incentives for the oil industry that may be repealed. At first glance, it appears that independent producers who primarily operate within the U.S. stand to be hurt the most.
As it pertains to the budget, the biggest tickets items include the repeal of the Gulf of Mexico royalty relief, the expensing of intangible drilling costs (IDCs), the manufacturing tax deduction, and the percentage of depletion method for oil and natural gas.
The Gulf of Mexico Royalty relief calls for lower royalties when commodity prices are below certain thresholds. Given the long investment cycle, large investment, and geological risk associated with offshore drilling, producers claim the royalty relief is necessary to reduce capital impairment risk. The budget also provides for a fee on nonproducing leases on federal lands (primarily offshore)--basically a "use it or lose it" clause. Players that stand to be impacted by this change include the majors: ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and large independents like Anadarkoand Devon. Portfolio diversity will insulate the largest producers from these higher taxes to some degree.
Perhaps of greater importance is the repeal of the IDC deduction. IDCs (roughly 80%-90% of the well cost) are tax-deductible, allowing producers to defer taxes. An especially active producer that increases its drilling budget every year can effectively avoid paying cash taxes for years.
Given the heavy capital requirements for early- to mid-stage producers, the IDC tax deduction is a critical component of a firm's financing strategy. Small to medium-sized E&Ps that are still rapidly growing stand to be impacted the most from this change: Chesapeake Energy CHK, Range Resources RRC, Ultra Petroleum UPL, XTO XTO, and Southwestern Energy SWN, among others. Because natural gas is primarily a regionally traded commodity, we believe this places a governor on the pace at which domestic natural gas production can grow, putting upward pressure on prices in the longer term. Producers with clean balance sheets who aren't as reliant on IDC tax credits as part of their financing strategy stand to benefit.
The manufacturing tax credit is pretty straightforward and was enacted with the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act. In 2008, it represented a 6% tax credit on manufacturing activities. The budget calls for oil companies to be ineligible for this deduction.
The percentage of depletion clause is a little more complicated and only pertains to nonintegrated producers. It is essentially a form of accelerated depreciation, which defers tax payments.
Bottom line, cash taxes appear to be headed higher, which points to higher oil and natural gas prices in the longer term. With a higher cost structure, we wouldn't expect U.S. producers' profits to move in lock step.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/28/2009 10:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
At first glance, it appears that independent producers who primarily operate within the U.S. stand to be hurt the most.
And this reduces our dependence upon foreign oil how?
OBAMA: In ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. Number one, we need to expand domestic production and that means telling the oil companies the 68 million acres that they currently have leased that theyre not drilling, use them or lose them.
#4
From yesterday's investors' news letter by John Mauldin: "This week saw President Obama give us a budget with a projected deficit of $1.75 trillion dollars, and a massive tax increase on the "wealthy." But hidden in the details was an even larger tax increase on everyone. Obama wants to create a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions. This is expected to generate $79 billion in 2012, $237 billion by 2014, and grow to $646 billion by 2019. These will be payments by energy (primarily utility) companies to the government. That will cause utilities to have to raise the prices they charge customers for energy. Such a level of taxation is eventually 4-5% of total US GDP. That is not small potatoes. And since the wealthy do not use all that much more power than the rest of us, it will affect the lower incomes disproportionately.
It will take money out of consumers' pockets and transfer it to the government. You can call it cap-and-trade, but it is a tax. And a huge one. Anything that will take 4% of GDP away from consumer spending is not business friendly. And by driving the cost of energy up, it will drive high-energy-using businesses away from the US to developing countries where energy is cheaper. It will make it even harder for people to save money and drive up costs for the elderly and retired. But it will make the environmental lobby happy."
#5
For the short term, energy exploration and production has been slowing due to falling prices, but has overall been supportive of the economy. The above tax changes is sure to decrease jobs in the energy exploration and service areas, as well as equipment manufacturing.
A big hit to the U.S. economy over the next twelve months.
#7
Next he will go after the electric companis, tax the crap out of them. Then he will brag about not increasing income tax and blame the high cost of energy on greedy corperations. Good god he is transparent.
Im glad my solar power is up.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/28/2009 23:58 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
