The Nacilbupera Guzzle

Whoever examines with attention the history of the dearths and famines … will find, I believe, that a dearth never has arisen from any combination among the inland dealers in corn, nor from any other cause but a real scarcity, occasioned sometimes perhaps, and in some particular places, by the waste of war, but in by far the greatest number of cases by the fault of the seasons; and that a famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconveniences of a dearth. (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations IV.5.44)

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Read Our Lips, Obama: No Cap And Trade

Obama promised in his quest for re-election a tax break "for 95% of Americans." Now with the Cap-and-Trade bill he urges Congress to pass he is indirectly taxing 100% of Americans. How so?

Obama gets away with his "inconvenient truth" of increasing taxes or the amount we pay to the federal government by effectively redefining taxes to be limited to personal income tax. Obama is not raising our income tax. Instead he is raising a massive tax on energy companies who must pass on the levied tax in the form of higher rates to consumers. This is not right and Nacilbupera is calling it out for what it is: a scheme to raise a massive $1.5 trillion through indirect taxation.

Interestingly, taxes levied through the higher rates are disproportionately levied on Republican-voting states. This chart shows that the 8 of the 10 states to receive the most energy price increases voted for McCain:

(1) Wyoming
(2) North Dakota
(3) West Virginia
(4) Kentucky
(5) Indiana
(6) Montana
(7) Alabama
(8) New Mexico
(9) Oklahoma
(10) Utah

while of the 10 states least affected in this proposal include 9 voting for Obama:
(1) Vermont
(2) Delaware
(3) Idaho
(4) California
(5) Washington
(6) Oregon
(7) New Jersey
(8) Rhode Island
(9) New York
(10) Connecticut

Put another way, the incremental energy-bill costs to consumers in Wyoming are close to 4000 times as more as if you live in Vermont.

But isn't the issue of CO2 emissions an issue for the states? Nacilbupera says yes. Yet in the 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA the court ruled that the EPA must regulate CO2. Nacilbupera believes this ruling was made erroneously and was out of bounds for the authority granted the court. Yet the court has no power to specify what actions must be taken as this is the arena of Congress. Nacilbupera feels that voluntary compliance with CO2 reductions fulfill our erroneous court-ordered obligation and that a massive tax burden on us Americans is unwanted, unwarranted, and un-American.

For anyone who believed Obama's garbage pre-election promise of a tax break, you need to get on the phone with your representative NOW (vote in Congress tomorrow) and urge them to defeat the energy tax of Waxman-Markey--else take that bundle of money you saved by switching to GEICO and kiss it goodbye.


RightKlik said...

Did he forget saying this?

"If you are a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes -- not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes. In fact, chances are you will get a tax cut."

Barack Hussein Obama

nacilbupera said...

To answer your rhetorical question, Obama (unlike Bryd, see our following post) as we both know, isn't stupid. He is cunning and deceitful and is the king of half-truths. He is a corrupt, sleek politician hell-bent on turning America into an anti-Christian Communistic nation where government controls everything. We say Communistic because we are becoming more and more convinced he seems unabated in his quest for control beyond European Socialistic models.
But you need to keep that great quote handy because there are a lot of independents out there with short-term memories that need to be won over to take back congress in 2010.
We appreciate your comments as always!