Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Obama to raise gas prices and inflation by raising taxes on oil companies

Obama is now saying that he wants to cut subsidies to oil companies (H/T Lonely Conservative), which will just increase their costs for extracting and processing oil. They will pass those costs directly on to the consumer. Obama will then blame the oil companies, even though he is the cause of the higher costs in the first place.

Excerpt:

The White House has sent officials to the G20 summit in Seol, South Korea and part of the message those officials are carrying from the PResident is a promise to join “joint efforts to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.”

But, what subsidies to fossil fuels get? Mostly tax breaks, which are hardly subsidies at all. Letting people or companies keep more of their own money isn’t “subsidy.” It’s tax relief. America’s policies amount to tax breaks aimed at driving capital investment in the energy markets, and frankly these sort of tax breaks are available to a lot of industries.

[…]What’s going on here is a bit of sleight-of-hand. Obama and other world leaders are talking about “ending subsidies” for fossil fuels. What they really mean is raising taxes on fossil fuels so that the so-called “green energy” projects they’re all so drippy about are more competitive in world energy markets.

What this means for you and me is higher energy prices and, by extension, a higher cost of living across our entire economy as those higher energy prices translate into higher prices for goods and services (everyone has to pay their power/fuel bills).

And it won’t just be the taxes adding to our expenses. If higher taxes drive more fossil fuel producers out of the market (and that’s clearly the goal here), they will be replaced by much more expensive and much less reliable “green energy” producers. That, again, means a bigger hit to the wallets of Americans.

Meanwhile, this report concludes that cumulative US subsidies of biofuels could reach $1 trillion over the next two decades. And that’s just biofuels, not other initiatives like wind power or solar power.

In summary, these people want to hamstring cheap, reliable fossil fuels in order to promote heavily-subsidized, expensive, unreliable green power.

Next time, don’t vote for a Marxist community organizer to be President. Pick someone who actually has run a business and met payroll.

UPDATE: A commenter adds:

What the President is talking about when he mentions oil “subsidies” is not a “subsidy,” it’s fair accounting. The primary “subsidy” is the oil depletion allowance, which is simply proper accounting for depleting in-ground assets.

The oil depletion allowance is nothing more than how the oil company computes how much an oil well decreases in total value when they pump oil out of it. There’s a finite amount of oil in a well, but the total amount is really an estimate. When it drills the well, the oil company declares what the oil in the ground is worth. When it pumps the oil out of the ground, the company takes a “depletion allowance” to account for the reduced value of the oil in the ground, and subtracts that value from their profits, thus reducing the amount of profit they have to declare for tax purposes. This is no different from, say, a paper company subtracting the cost of the logs they used in making paper from the profit they earned selling the paper. It’s calculated something like depreciation because the actual amount of the oil in a well is impossible to measure.

What’s happening is that the President, in an attempt to create demons that his dupes can hate, is deliberately misleading people into thinking that oil companies get special treatment. Just using the word “subsidy” regarding the depletion allowance is a lie, plain and simple. Worse, even: it’s defamation, and a declaration that the government really owns everything.

New Michele Bachmann interviews on the economy

Let Americans spend their own money

Time to prioritize spending

Obama’s plan is to raise your taxes

Can we pay for Obama’s deficits by taxing ONLY the “rich”?

No, and George Mason University economist Walter Williams explains why.

Excerpt:

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It’s not even yacht and Lear jet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite. They’re going to have to go after the non-rich.

Obama is going to have to tax you and me to pay for his trillions of dollars in spending.

Republicans hire top lawyer to defend traditional marriage against Democrats

This is from liberal CNN. (H/T Reuben)

Excerpt:

House Republicans have hired a prominent conservative attorney to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a pending lawsuit, legal sources say, and will make an effort to divert money from the Justice Department to fund its high-profile fight.

House Speaker John Boehner disclosed the legal and political strategy in a letter Monday to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The Obama administration, which normally would defend federal laws in judicial disputes, announced last month it believed the Defense of Marriage Act, often referred to as DOMA, to be unconstitutional. The law defines marriage for federal purposes as unions only between a man and woman.

Boehner said that with the Justice Department not participating, he had “no choice” but to act unilaterally.

“The burden of defending DOMA, and the resulting costs associated with any litigation that would have otherwise been born (sic) by DOJ (The Department of Justice), has fallen to the House,” Boehner said. “Obviously, DOJ’s decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA. It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA.”

Such a move would require Senate approval, an unlikely prospect since Democrats control that chamber.

Boehner will probably end up finding money for the legal fight from other discretionary and non-discretionary spending sources, according to legal experts. There was no indication just how much the legal fight could eventually cost.

[…]Legal sources say the House Republican leadership hired [Paul D.] Clement, a Washington appellate attorney, to defend the law. He filed a brief Monday in a pending case from New York, where a lesbian received an estate tax bill of more than $360,000 after her longtime partner and legal wife had died.Clement is a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, serving from 2005 to 2008. It was his job to defend federal laws and executive actions in court, similar to what he will be doing now as a private lawyer on retainer. He was mentioned at one time as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

Separately, he also is representing more than two dozens states in their lawsuit against the administration over the sweeping health care reform law passed by Congress last year. That case is pending in a federal appeals court in Atlanta.

Once again we see the importance of conservative parents raising influential children. Everybody talks about traditional marriage, but only Paul D. Clement is going to be in a position to really do something about it. And why? Because he has effectively pursued skills and jobs that put him in a position to have an influence.