Who is to blame for Gas Prices?

There has been a lot of talk from Democrats about Gas Prices and Oil Prices. They want to tax the oil companies and force them to produce more oil. That leaves a problem we still would not have enough gas as there are not enough refinearies. Democrats have fought them as well as other good alternatives, President Bush said this yesterday, "Those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration, against the development of nuclear power and against expanding refining capacity,"
We also have added ethenol to our gas which makes it tougher to refine and cost more because we subsidize the corn production. We should also limit speculation in these markets as they are vital to our national economy. But, we will not get any of these solutions as long as the Democrats that are in charge want to appease too many groups and increase taxes while refusing to fix any of the problems facing the country.

Sphere: Related Content

Democrats want to Tax Again!!

Look out, The Democrats are out to raise taxes again. But you do not have to worry they just want to add a 1% tax on those making over 500,000 and couples making over 1,000,000. Forget the fact that these people already pay a majority of taxes lets just add a new surcharge. Democrats have proved again and again they are incapable of making the tough decisions of choosing between programs that work and dont. Instead they just want new taxes to fund new programs while not having to cut anything. The lack of Respect that the Democrats show these taxpayers is out of hand. They pay a majority of the taxes and the democrats take pot shots at them while they are doing it. This is just the latest effort of the Democrats to strip away the American Dream and replace it with a handout state.

Sphere: Related Content

You have got to love a Congressional Commission that ignores the facts to urge increase in taxes

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission came out today with the recomendation to increase gas taxes by 40 cents in order to pay for infastructure improvements in the aftermath of the Minnesota Bridge Collapse.

Never mind the fact the collapse was due to a design flaw in the building of the bridge.

Link Here

Don't let facts get in the way of a good tax increase.

Sphere: Related Content

Mike Huckabee raised more taxes than Bill Clinton as Governor

Mike Huckabee has been able to rise in the polls while claiming to be a true conservative. He had not been given much attention because he was not considered a top-tier cantidate. Now that he has risen in the polls his record is being filled in and it is not what he claims it to be.


The Arkansas Leader is running this ediorial:

Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.
Clinton tax increases

- Increased the general sales tax from 3 percent to 4 per- cent (Act 63 of special session of 1983)

- Increased sales tax by half of 1 percent and extended the tax to used vehicles (Act 3 of 1991)

- Increased the corporate income tax from 6 to 6.5 percent for corporations with net incomes greater than $100,000 (Act 1052 of 1991)

- Levied a 16 percent tax on snuff (yes, there are a few people who still dip snuff) (Act 628 of 1987)

- Levied a 25-cent tax on each pack of cigarette papers (yes, there are people who still roll their own) (Act 1045 of 1987)

- Increased the cigarette tax from 17.75 cents a pack to 21 cents a pack (Act 399 of 1983)

- Increased the cigarette tax by a penny a pack (Act 1211 of 1991)

- Levied a 2 percent tax on certain tourism items like admission to theme parks (Act 38 of 1989)

- Increased excise taxes on mixed drinks sold for on-premises consumption (not wine or beer) (Act 844 of 1983 and Act 908 of 1989)

- Increased motor fuel taxes by 1 cent a gallon (1979)

- Increased motor fuel taxes by 4 cents a gallon (Act 456 of 1985) (Clinton vetoed the bill but the legislature overrode his veto.)

- Increased the tax on motor fuels by 5 cents a gallon

- Increased motor vehicle registration fees, 1979 (subsequently repealed)
Huckabee tax increases

- Imposed an income tax surcharge of 3 percent on tax liabilities of individuals and domestic and foreign corporations (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003). (It was temporary until revenues improved. The legislature repealed it in 2005.)

- Increased the sales tax by 1/8 of one percent by initiated act (but it was a personal campaign by Huckabee, who campaigned across the state for it and took a celebrated bass boat trip for 4 days down the Arkansas River holding press conferences in each river city to urge passage of the act)

- Increased the sales tax by one-half of 1 percent (Act 1492 of 1999)

- Increased the sales tax by 7/8ths of 1 percent and expand the sales tax to many services previously exempt from the tax (Act 107, 2nd special session of 2003)

- Collected a 2 percent tax on chewing tobacco, cigars, package tobacco, cigarette papers and snuff (Act 434 of 1997)

- Levied an additional excise tax of 7 percent on tobacco (Act 38 of 1st special session of 2003)

- Increased the tax on cigarette and tobacco permits (Act 1337 of 1997)

- Increased the tax on cigarette and tobacco – cigarettes by $1.25 per thousand cigarettes and 2 percent of the manufacturers’ selling price on tobacco products (Act 434 of 1997)

- Increased the tax on cigarettes by 25 cents a pack (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003)

- Levied a 3 percent excise tax on all retail sales of beer (Act 1841 of 2001 and extended by Act 272 of 2003 and Act 2188 of 2005)

- Revived the 4 percent mixed drink tax of 1989 and added a 4 percent tax on private clubs (Act 1274 of 2005)

- Increased the tax on gasoline by 3 cents a gallon (Act 1028 of 1999)

- Increased the tax on diesel by 4 cents a gallon (Act 1028 of 1999) Note: Contrary to what Huckabee has said repeatedly in debates, speeches and TV shows, the 1999 gasoline and diesel taxes were not submitted to the voters and approved by 80 per cent of them. It was never submitted to a vote. It was the governor’s bill and it became law without a vote of the people. What the voters did approve in 1999 was a bond issue for interstate highway reconstruction but it did not involve a tax increase. Existing taxes and federal receipts were pledged to retire the bonds.

- Increased the driver’s license by $6 a person, from $14 to $20 (Act 1500 of 2001)
So which raised taxes more? It is hard to quantify. If you measured the increases in the revenue stream, the Huckabee tax cuts far exceeded Clinton’s but that would be unfair because the economy had grown and the same penny of tax would produce far more under Huckabee.

But if you look at the major taxes, I see the aggregate Huckabee taxes as greater, especially if you deduct the 4 cent gasoline and diesel taxes that Clinton vetoed in 1985 and that the legislature enacted over his veto.

Anyway, the sales tax is the big revenue producer. Both raised it by 1.5 cents on the dollar and both expanded it to cover a myriad of services. Clinton raised motor fuel taxes a little more, Huckabee cigarette taxes a lot more.

A further note: Huckabee claims credit for a major tax cut in 1997, saying it was the first tax cut in Arkansas history (there had been many prior to that) and that he forced the Democratic legislature to curtail its impulse to always raise taxes.

The facts: The omnibus income tax cut bill of 1997 was proposed by Gov. Jim Guy Tucker in the spring of 1996. It had multiple (7) features, all aimed at relief for middle-class families or the elderly. He asked interim legislative committees to expand on his plan. Tucker then resigned before the legislature convened after his conviction on Whitewater-related charges, and Huckabee took office.

At the legislative session that followed, the Democratic caucus of the House (88 of the 100 members) made the Tucker tax cuts its chief program. The bill was introduced with 83 sponsors (all Democrats) and all Democrats voted for it. It was unopposed. Huckabee’s tax cut was to give each taxpayer a check for $25 each fall, saying it would help offset the burden of sales taxes on groceries (the repeal of which he repeatedly opposed). The legislature rejected Huckabee’s plan and passed the Tucker bill. Huckabee signed it into law.

The 94 tax cuts that he said he fathered are similarly misleading. The vast majority of those were the usual exemptions and modifications of various taxes and fees that the legislature enacts every time it meets. They were not a part of Huckabee’s program with a few exceptions. Rather, Democratic legislators sponsored them, usually at the behest of whatever special interest benefited, and Huckabee signed them when they hit his desk. If you did a similar summary of Clinton’s years he could claim probably well over 100 tax cuts. Every Arkansas governor since World War II could claim dozens each.

If you counted all the tax benefits extended to corporations under the incentives enacted by the legislature under Clinton — and they were part of his programs, especially in 1983, 1985 and 1989 — the tax cuts would dwarf those under Huckabee.

Sphere: Related Content

Mike Huckabee: "whatever tax is fine with me"

Mike Huckeabee has been running as a conservative. He claims to be the only true conservative. Well, this video should expose the real Mike Huckabee. He is a tax and spend Republican who is only conservative on his stance on abortion. His view on abortion could just be lipservice to get votes judging by the rest of his record.

Sphere: Related Content

Voters really dont want higher taxes to pay for the uninsured's healthcare; Evidence Oregon

Yesterday the State of Oregon rejected a plan to raise cigerette taxes to fund health care for the uninsured by a 60%-40% vote. THis is just futher evidence that the propaganda that has been put out by some that people want higher insurace in order to pay for others health care is just not what the mainstream voters really believe.

Sphere: Related Content

Edwards Plans for America, not all they're cracked up to be

John Edwards has been releasing a barage of ideas on policies that he would like to implement if he became President. John Edwards wants the government to pay for Universal Pre-Kindergarten, have the government provide matching savings accounts, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 an hour, and a government run program called "College for Everyone" to provide college educations for everyone. He believes this should all be government funded and be paid for by higher taxes. Edwards goes on to say that, "There are no free meals," but that is exactly what he wants to provide.

Universal Pre-K

Universal Pre-K is one of those things that sounds good on the stump, but in reality is just not a great idea. First, we are not even getting K-12 correct yet. Why expand the education system when we can not even face the failing of the current systems we have in place. This is a move to create a new free lunch program to pay for babysitting for children instead of education. We as a country do not have a duty to provide for every child from birth to graduation from college. This is a family responsibility.

Government Matching Savings Accounts

Edwards proposes another free lunch program here also. American does not have any Constitutional power to do such a thing. We as a society should do everything we can to encourage saving. It is not the job of our government to provide matching funds for those that do so. This is a gross injustice to the federal governments taxing power. Money should not be taken from some just to be given to other people for the sake of doing it.

Minimum Wage Increase

John Edwards loves the idea of increasing the minimum wage. The problem with this proposal is that it really does not help people. Artifical floors and ceilings on prices do not work in the long run. The fact is that such an increase in the minimum wage will do more to destroy the middle class than anything else. Most in the middle class are salaried employess who make very modest salaries. When the minimum wage is increased prices also increase by the same amount because costs are passed through to the consumers. These middle class salaried employees do not see an increase in their salaries and if they do not by the amount of the increase in prices. So the middle class salaried employees are pulled closer to the poverty line while the workers who see the increase in wages have no more purchasing power.

College for Everyone

John Edwards proposal for College for Everyone is good for publicity but nothing more than pandering. Here in the United States we already have a system that allows people aid to go to college. Our Financial Aid system provides government subsidized loans to those who need assistance to pay for college. Second, the idea that everyone should go to College is a fallacy in operation. By having everyone go to college you just devalue the advantage of a college degree. You create a domino effect where a high school diplomia is even more devalued and a college degree is the basic starting point. So now those who want to get ahead need to get a masters degree. Those that would have gotten a Masters degree before get a PHD instead. This just removes any advantage to these degrees. Instead we should instead focus on improving our High School system. Those who would like to pursue a vocation that does not require a college degree should be encouraged and provided vocational training that they need. Those that plan on going to college should recieve the college preperation they need. This is a realistic approach not a one size fits all of a College for Everyone program.



John Edwards likes rhetoric and pandering. How else could he advocate that there are no free lunches while pushing proposals creating them. John Edwards has taken an platform of running for President by raising taxes and creating massive new government programs. This traditionally has not worked. Walter Mondale has been here and done that and We must assume and hope the results will be the same. It always sounds good when government gives things away, but someone has to pay and the effect of that will destroy and economy and create a larger government that our Constitution never intended. Always Remember a Government powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take your freedoms away.



http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/FRONTPAGE/710260384

Sphere: Related Content

Rep. Charles Rangel proposes the largest Tax Increase in US History

Chairman Rangel proposed the Largest Tax Increase in the history of the United States last night. He wants to increase taxes 3.5 Trillion over the next ten years. Lets break down how Charles Rangel and the Democrats want to destroy the United States economy and move us towards a Nanny State.

4% Surtax on Americans earning over 150,000 a year and 200,000 for couples

Allow the Expiration of the Bush tax cuts that have spured economic growth

Raise the top Marginal tax rate from 35% to 44%

The details of the proposal make it even worse. The surtax on income is not on taxable income it is on gross income, something that is has never been taxed like this before. It also provides for the worst marriage penalty we have ever faced. Two sucessful spouses will be overly punished just for getting married because if a spouse makes as little as 50,000 a year they face higher taxes.

The joke that the paygo system is, gets exposed in this measure. Rangel insists that he must pay for AMT tax increases that were never inteded to happen. He believes that the 3.5 Trillion of a mistake that everyone agrees the AMT has "accidently created" has to be paid for. Money that has not been collected by the government is not a loss to government and should not have to be paid for. This just shows the shallow thinking of the Democrats. The could never handle not allowing the Government Revenue to increase by unreasonable means. What is the goal of this. Wealth Redistribution! How else do we expect the Democrats to pay for all their unreasonable proposals?

Sphere: Related Content

Dems now want to raise your taxes "for global warming," I dont buy it

The Democrats are now making arguments to raise taxes to "fight global warming"

These taxes include

50 cent gasoline tax

Carbon Tax

Removing intrest tax deductions for homeowners



This is Big Government at its worst. Now they want to tax the crap out of gas, impose a whole new tax, and tell homeowners what kind of homes they should own. What do they propose to do with this "necessary revenue" spend it. At least they could be honest they want to raise our taxes for the sake of raises taxes to spend more. That is what this is all about. The Democrats have never seen a tax they have disliked.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602127_pf.html

Sphere: Related Content