Hyperinflation anyone?

I got this chart from Glenn Beck and FoxNews. Don't believe Beck and Fox? Okay, the source is the Federal Reserve Bank, believe them? At any rate, the chart plots over time the amount of money we have out in the market at any one time. So, that being the case, it clearly shows one thing. An exorbitant increase in the amount of money we've been printing following the onset of the latest recession. We've never done this before. The chart goes back beyond the Great Depression. During that time, we were on the gold standard and couldn't print more money. This remained true throughout WWII, Vietnam, etc. It was only after the programs of the "Great Society" began to really cost a lot of money that Nixon removed us from the gold standard in 1971. So, look at the chart carefully. We began to print more money after 1971. Not a problem because there are all kinds of checks and balances to keep the whole thing balanced, right? Sure, as long as you don't just print money like crazy. That's what happened to Germany after WWI that caused their hyperinflation. So, what else does the chart show. It shows us that in 1971, we had about 50 billion dollars out there which over time increased to about 900 billion by 2007. Then we hit 2008 and the amount jumps to about 1.7 trillion dollars. That is almost doubling the amount of money on the market in just one, 1, uno, um, un, ane, een, eins, eyns, en, unu, aon (how many languages do I need to put it in to make the point) year. That's outrageous and dangerous. We need to reign in our own government. Thomas Jefferson put in the Declaration of Independence

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

In addition, Jefferson also wrote in a letter to John Taylor in 1816, "I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale" which basically means that the government shouldn't establish a bank because that would be more dangerous than a standing army (which we also have) and that we should not spend money or have debt that needs to be paid by our posterity, our offspring, our future. So, what the government is doing now is endangering our ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness by buying banks (establishing them?) and by printing money frivolously and by mortgaging the future of our country and our children with trillion dollar debts all in the name of sparing ourselves a bit of discomfort and difficult times. This is not only wrong, but I submit it is immoral and should be vigorously defended against.

A couple of ideas of how to better spend 825 billion dollars

I saw on Glenn Beck two ideas about how to spend our bailout money better. 1. with the 825 billion, we could give every mortgage holder in the U.S. 17,000 dollars. Hmm... wonder if that would help with foreclosures. 2. with 825 billion dollars, we could pay everyone's gas at current prices for 5 years. So, stimulus is not about us, it is about Washington trying to make themselves look good, because if it were about us, you'd see the kinds of ideas from above, not what is in this bill.

Bailout heroes

Not a single Republican voted for the bailout bill that passed in the House yesterday, 244-188. However, there were also 11 Democrats who voted against the bill and I want to commend them for having some sense. I don't really care why they voted against it since I am against it, but they did vote against it nonetheless. So, here goes, the 11 Democrats who supposedly have a brain are:

Allen Boyd, Fla.
Bobby Bright, Ala.
Jim Cooper, Tenn.
Parker Griffith, Ala.
Paul Kanjorski, Pa.
Frank Kratovil, Md.
Collin Peterson, Minn.
Heath Shuler, N.C.
Brad Ellsworth, Ind.
Walt Minnick, Idaho
Gene Taylor, Miss.

Do we want him to fail?

I do hate to say this, because I've never been a big fan of Rush Limbaugh. He's always seemed kind of pompous and loud to me. That's a personal impression, not me lambasting him. Nonetheless, I have to admit that I agree with him. He recently said "I hope he fails". If this were all he said, I'd be in agreement with just about everyone else that Rush had crossed the line. Obama is our President and we need to support the office, unlike anyone in the last 8 years. That doesn't mean I sit back and smile like a lemming in Congress for Obama or even for Bush, but it also means that I don't go out and intentionally demean the man. There were a lot of things Bush did that I didn't agree with. There were a few I did agree with as well and I bet an honest appraisal of people would discover that is true for an overwhelming majority, whether they liked him or not. The whole "anybody but Bush" mantra in 2004 resulted in a washy liberal campaign that turned so many people off that it resulted in another Bush victory (yes he won in 2000 too, get over it). But, insulting Bush at every turn became the mantra for victory in 2008. This was disgusting and turned me away from the Democratic party (for which I had almost always voted previously). Not because I liked Bush, I don't, nor because I liked his policies, I didn't a lot of the time, but because they were attacking the man on a personal level (which I expect from comedians, not politicians and the media) not on a political one. I expect people to disagree politically and to espouse their disapproval of policies, but somehow, Bush wasn't just someone we disagreed with, he was the devil incarnate. Perhaps that is why the Democrats used a "messianic" campaign to win this time. This also turned me off even more to the Democrats, but that's a different story. So, why do I agree with Rush here and now? Isn't he attacking Obama personally, like all the Democrats did to Bush? Well, I'd agree that is true if all I knew about what he said was "I hope he fails". However, unlike the majority of Americans who listen to the news and expect to receive truth by osmosis rather than actually looking for it, I went and read the transcript of the show. See, I like to know the truth. Here is the quote from the transcript:

Look, what he's (Obama) talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

So, he is not actually attacking Obama personally. He is clearly saying that he thinks the guys policies are wrong and that he doesn't want them (the policies) to succeed. This is a perfect example of how the news becomes distorted, because by removing only the I hope he fails comment, this sounds awful, truly awful. But it really isn't, is it. It continues on:

We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are.

So no, he isn't bashing Obama personally, he is making a statement about his policies and liberalism in general. Nothing wrong with this, so get over it people. This is actually tame in comparison with what Democrats did and said in regards to Bush, so I find the double standard amusing and perhaps downright scary. Nonetheless, don't take my word for what the transcript says, go here and read it for yourself and then decide for yourself.

I just can't remain silent

I spent the majority of the day yesterday watching the inauguration, enjoying the historical significance of the event and the true excitement expressed by the large crowds and the people all around me. I was a bit disappointed about the boos heard from the crowd when Bush was announced because no President deserves that whether you agree with him or not. However, I enjoyed most of the day very much. I thought Rick Warren gave a very good prayer that completely obliterated any criticism that could be made toward him as an inappropriate choice. I enjoyed Obama's speech. It sounded great, although there were a few things in it I know I would disagree with, the speech itself was a good one. Of course, he's always been good at giving a good speech. This day seemed to be the embodiment of Dr. King's speech when he said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." This was a magnificent event celebrating exactly that sentiment, right up until the benediction was given. I was listening to this prayer, given by Joseph Lowery, and couldn't believe that I'd just heard what I'd heard. it was completely contrary to the spirit of the day, completely untrue of modern America and deliberately derisive, which is contrary to Obama's lip service to unity and inclusiveness. Worse still, USAToday reports that Obama smiled when it was uttered. The quote is in this USAToday article but I'm going to reprint it here.

"help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right"

Now, most of this prayer was quite beautiful in a way and did in fact express the sentiments of the day, but I'm sorry. I understand this man lived through the civil rights movement and this is probably a statement expressing the hurt of his lifetime. It is a great thing that he'd move from civil rights activist to giving the benediction at the inauguration of an African American President. This is what he and Dr. King were fighting for. In fact, I agree that the black men should not be asked to get in back and they aren't anymore. Nor do I think brown should be asked to leave town and I don't see that being the case anymore either. Those concepts are laughable to almost all Americans today, regardless of race, but what was the rest of this about? White will embrace what is right? This implies that he believes we haven't. At least I can only assume that this is what that means. Who wrote his speech? Sounds like a line from a Jeremiah Wright sermon, which may be why our new President didn't recognize it as blatantly racist. So, I ask this. There was so much controversy over Rick Warren leading up to the inauguration and he made a beautiful prayer, a Christian/Jewish prayer, but a nice prayer nonetheless that was certainly offensive to nobody, except that small minority of people who don't believe prayer should be included in these events at all. However, Rev. Lowery's prayer was far from inoffensive. Imagine if Rick Warren had given the line Rev. Lowery used in his prayer. I'm sorry, but that is a classic double standard. Having been wrongfully oppressed in the past doesn't give someone the right to be blatantly racist. So, what was the worst part of the day for me? This line in this prayer was horrible. It ruined to tone of the rest of his prayer and it basically stated to that ALL whites are to be painted with the same brush as those racists who resisted the civil rights movement. It was inappropriate at best and racist at worst and therefore should not have been said. What is worse overall isn't even that Obama is reported to have smiled during this line but that non, not one, of the major news sources seems to have reported on this at all, and what reports I have seen don't condemn it, but rather are reporting it positively. Really? Rick Warren can be lambasted in the press for being against gay marriage, but Joseph Lowery barely gets a mention for being against whites? Hmm...

It's so sad that people just don't get it!

The Venezuelan legislature has passed an amendment to their constitution which would allow Chavez (and anyone else for that matter) to run for reelection indefinitely. Read about it here. It has pretty much been proven by history that, at least in most of the world, this is a bad idea. Hopefully, the referendum of the people will again stop this from becoming reality as it did last year, but I actually am not putting much hope into that possibility. So, be prepared for Chavez being around for a very long time. After all, he really doesn't have his people's and country's best interests at heart, he is a power hungry dictator who wants to control his people and his country and those around him, his neighbors. How long before he invades one of those neighbors. Don't believe me? Okay, wait and see.

Honest mistakes?!

So, Obama appointed Timothy Geithner to lead the Treasury Department. His credentials suggest he's qualified. However, now it was reported in USAToday that he didn't pay his taxes in 2001, 2002, 2003 or 2004. Now maybe he paid taxes in those years, but he certainly didn't do it correctly. Now, he has paid his back taxes and an interest fine on top of that, but people in Congress (Democrats) are calling it an honest mistake and saying it shouldn't affect his confirmation. First, I suspect if it were a Republican President who appointed such a person to office, Congress (both Dems and Reps) would be up in arms, but for some reason, since Obama appointed him, it seems it is just an honest mistake. Okay, I'm not saying he belongs in jail because he did pay his back taxes, fines and interest. Of course, I'm wondering what happened to the days when we put people in jail for tax evasion. Nonetheless, my point is this. For someone who is supposedly qualified to run the Department of the Treasury, this is a problem, for someone appointed to almost any other position in the cabinet, this can be called an "honest mistake". You see, he didn't make a mistake in his taxes for one year, which anybody can do. He consistently made the same mistake in his taxes for four years running. Only a 2006 audit caught him. If it hadn't been for the audit, would he have ever paid his back taxes? You could argue that a person could make the same mistake over and over again if they didn't know it was a mistake, and I'd agree. However, I would never argue that that person is also qualified to run the Department of the Treasury, so no, I don't buy that he just made the same mistake over and over. If he is qualified to run the Treasury, then he should have known better, otherwise, he either isn't really qualified or he is a crook. Oh wait! Nevertheless, one other issue has also come to light. It seems that mister Geithner hired himself a domestic worker in 2005. This person was supposedly legal when they were hired but overstayed their time and worked illegally for Mr. Geithner for three months. Now, assuming the facts here are correct, I'd call this one an honest mistake. Anyone can hire a worker who is legal and not pay close enough attention to when their visa expires, I can see that happening. It certainly wouldn't disqualify him from serving as Treasury Secretary. If he wanted to run the Justice Department or immigration services or Homeland Security then I'd argue it is more than just an honest mistake, but he isn't being asked to run any of these agencies. So, my conclusion is that this pick should step aside, not because he hired an illegal, but because he apparently isn't qualified to do his own taxes, much less run the Treasury Department.

Headlines speak volumes

Now, here is a description of protests that took place in London from the CNN article: "The crowd dismantled barriers placed in front of the embassy and began pelting officers with sticks, rocks and pieces of the metal barriers". Accompanying the article is a picture of a man swinging a club at a policeman's horse. This is very violent activity overall and resulted in several arrests and the injury of a police officer. So, how was it reported?

CNN - London protests against Gaza conflict grows unruly
FoxNews - Gaza conflict protests in Europe turn violent
USAToday - Europe, Lebanon protest violence
Guardian - Tens of thousands join London Gaza protests
Washington Post - Gaza violence protested
Los Angeles Times and Washington Times - I actually couldn't find this reported. It probably was, it just wasnt't easy to find

So, based solely on headlines, you'd think that CNN was reporting on a little scuffle, that FoxNews and USAToday were reporting on a protest turned violent, that the Guardian in London and the Washington Post were simply reporting that protests took place, and if you read the Washington Times and L.A. Times, you probably didn't even know it took place. Now, any doubters about biased reporting in the media?

Jobless rates according to the Obama team

USAToday had an article today discussing Obama's intent to save or create 3.7 million (this number has changed so many times over the last several weeks/months that it is beginning to lack credibility, but I digress) jobs over the next 6 years (according to the chart). So, I have a couple of questions. For reference, here's the chart included in the article purportedly from report:So, my questions. One, how do they plan on measuring jobs saved. I mean, how does one count that, really? Should we all go out and look at the unemployment numbers next month, see that they are smaller than this months and declare we've saved jobs? That would be stupid, wouldn't it. So, how do you count this? My second question is more of an observation. After all, I notice that in each scenario, the unemployment rate is significantly decreasing conveniently in time for the next election. Doesn't really mean anything, but it is interesting. In addition, I notice that whether we spend this (possibly 1 trillion dollars) money, by 2014, the chart shows that the unemployment rate would be the same. So, we are going to place the next generation of Americans in greater debt in order to spare the current generation a few years of hard times. I guess that makes sense to a politician who relies only on the current generation to get elected, but to those of us who actually have to think for a living, it doesn't make a lot of sense at all. This money should not be spent, period.

Another possible treatment from the equivalent of adult stem cells, still none for embryonic stem cells

I'm just wondering how long it will take people to realize that the "potential" of embryonic stem cells is a false hope. This article clearly shows another type of stem cells that can be used to treat diseases, possibly, that are derived from adult tissue rather than aborted fetuses. So, yet another victory for adult stem cells while still awaiting a single victory from embryonic stem cells. How long people, how long do we have to wait for the "scientists and politicians" to realize that the money and successes lay in adult stem cells. How long?

Genetic manipulation to spare people suffering or eugenics?

I read this article today. It discusses how a British couple had their child screened for the breast cancer gene (BRCA-1) in order to ensure that their child did not have the gene. It goes on to say that they would not have implanted that embryo into the mother had it contained the gene. So, we have finally come to it. The Gattaca scenario (a Hollywood motion picture for those of you who don't know the reference). Basically put, eugenics. Yes, picking and choosing our children's genetics. Now, I've listened to passionate, reasonable arguments for terminating a pregnancy when a known debilitating disease is present that will certainly have lifelong impacts on the child born with it, even causing severe problems and extremely short life spans. Whether one agrees with abortion in these cases isn't really my point. The point of this post is to point out that there is a hugely different mindset involved between choosing to terminate a child that WILL have a horribly debilitating disease versus choosing to terminate or "not implant" an embryo/fetus because it contains a gene that might someday have some sort of negative impact on the child that may or may not include death. See the difference? No? The easy answer here is to prevent all abortions and destruction of in-vitro embryos. In today's world, I don't think the easy answer is a real choice anymore. Therefore, it is up to those of us who might question eugenics and the results it would create to fight this kind of thing. Shall we draw a line in the sand and say "this far, no further"? Some may be asking what the big deal here is? After all, we are preventing the possibility of a child having a gene that causes a horrible disease in 50-80 percent of those that have it. Okay fine. Think about this. Would you consider it okay to pre-determine the eye or hair color of your child? Perhaps not, but then what is stopping you from choosing their skin color? Yes, we want a lighter or darker child please? Where does the slippery slope stop? Remember, the Germans tried this already, I'd like a blonde hair, blue eye, white child that looks of Germanic descent. Would you cheer this type of selective genetics? Oh, but we are only talking about diseases you'd argue? Sure, now that might be the case, but considering the cost of this kind of procedure, even with diseases we are creating inequality. I've always argued that equality ends at birth due to the situations we are in at birth and the choices we make and others make for us. However, you end even that kind of equality with this scenario. No? Right. In fact, you'd make it possible for the rich, educated haves in the world to have their choice of child while the poor, less fortunate and uneducated persons would end up with whatever God gave them. Hmm... sounds like a way to advance the elites even more over the poor. So, my question then becomes, why is it that the "liberals" tend to favor this type of thing while "conservatives" are generally against them? There is more to it than the abortion issue isn't there? Well, if one accepts abortion as a given, then this type of genetic manipulation would not seem wrong at all, I'd argue, would it? So, should we really be following the current crop of "liberals" who would lead us all down this path? Probably not.

I know I'm right on this one, but nobody seems to care

How is it, that every time I mention that anti-Jewish sentiment around the world is on the rise and reaching dangerous levels, I'm told that I'm an alarmist and that we'd never let what the Nazis did happen again. Oh really? The fact that we allow what the Nazis did to happen all around the world, especially in Africa, without ever lifting a finger should be a clue that it could happen again. When people do admit that anti-semitism seems to be on the rise, they blame who? Israel. So, it is the fault of the Jewish people and the Jewish state that more and more people around the world hate Jews? I highly doubt this assertion. While I suspect that Israel has made a lot of people angry, I'd submit that they didn't create Jewish hatred. Rather, their actions have made hating Jews fashionable again. What am I saying? I thought it was clear, but just in case it wasn't, I'm saying that hatred of Jews never really went away. It simply hid itself away after World War II because of some sense of collective guilt, especially on the part of Europeans. However, I've recently seen time and time again how it is clearly raising it's ugly head again, especially in Europe. The United States is not immune however. This FoxNews article discusses what happened at a protest rally in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The protester who shouted at the pro-Israeli protesters that they need to "return to the ovens" is a lot more than insensitive. In fact, that speech is not protected speech according to the Supreme Court, because they have ruled that if speech could logically lead to incite to riot, then it is irresponsible and perhaps criminal and therefore isn't protected speech. Whether you agree with the Supreme Court or not isn't relevant here. Judge for yourself whether you find the speech appropriate, offensive, whatever. Here's the video of it on YouTube. So, still think anti-semitism isn't on the rise, even here in America? Well, I think it is and I refuse to turn a blind eye to it while our government, our media, our celebrities, and virtually everyone around me chooses to do exactly that. In fact, the article talks about an organization supposedly dedicated to ending racism. It is called the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) coalition. Ironically, when asked about this protesters comments, they simply said they were insensitive comments. Okay, I'm a huge free speech person, but even I think this one crossed the line of insensitive. Nonetheless, even more ironically, one of this organization's state coordinator, Emmanuel Lopez, went on to say in an interview following the event that: "there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks". Really? Ya think? He then went on to show his own anti-semitism by calling the pro-Israel counter protesters "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists, specifically he said: "Zionism in general is a barbaric, racist movement that really is the cause of the situation in the entire Middle East,". I'm wondering who is more racist here. The woman caught up in the heat of the moment, the (anti-racist) organization clearly making anti-semitic remarks or the rest of us, for ignoring reality. Maybe someone will give me an answer to this, but that would require paying attention.

Go read this!

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/07/venezuela.israel/index.html

Chavez is at it again

Hugo Chavez is shouting loudly from the rooftops again and proving that he will support any and every cause that is contrary to U.S. interests regardless of who might be at fault. I'm not going to argue the merits of the Israeli invasion of Gaza or the drawbacks. I will say that Hamas was launching rockets into Israel for days before Israel took any response. In addition, I will say that the ONLY way to win a war (if you are going to fight one at all) is with overwhelming force. That is a lesson taught us by World War 2, one which the Israelis seem to have learned quite well based on their disproportionate response. It is also one which the U.S. and Europe seemed to have missed. In fact, the lessen Europe learned from WWII wasn't to avoid war because of what is necessary to win it, but that appeasement wasn't the problem with Hitler, rather they just didn't go far enough in their appeasement. It is despicable. At least the U.S. learned the lesson that war is tragic and should be avoided but is occasionally necessary (whether you agree with the current one or not) even if we seemed to have missed the point about overwhelming force being necessary to win. At any rate, Chavez has now thrown his hat into the ring, not really with the Palestinian people as he is claiming, but with Hamas, a terrorist organization that maintains control over Gaza. This, in my opinion makes Chavez and by proxy Venezuela a terrorist sponsoring state. That has actually been true for years considering he props up the terrorist rebels in Colombia through funding (can't be proven) and by allowing them to flee into Venezuela to escape capture. However, he is again shouting at the world for all to hear that he is nothing more than a leftist dictator who would place his own power and interests ahead of his people and country. I can only hope that he is throwing his hat in with the losing side, but prophecy tends to speak otherwise, in my opinion, at least in the long term. However, all this said, I will wrap up by saying that nobody will pay any attention at all to Chavez right now. The world is distracted and he can and will say whatever he wants. I still wonder how long it will be before he invades his neighbors, perhaps in an effort to consolidate power in his own country if he can't get the constitution there changed to allow him to be President for life. Hmm... his term ends in 2010, I think, so expect something radical from him in the next couple of years.

Being conservative in Hollywood

In an article that only FoxNews and a couple of bloggers seemed to care about, there is some discussion that celebrities in Hollywood, who have been reluctant to be open about their opinions because of the overwhelming majority of leftists there, are beginning to open up. Many are still reluctant. After all, there is an impression (perhaps well founded) that to be conservative in Hollywood, one must first establish themselves or else opening up about that reality would be a death knell to their career. In reality, the story on Fox is about the opening of a website (blog) where conservatives in Hollywood can espouse their opinions. It is really just another indication of the thawing that is taking place. New film festivals that highlight conservative themes have recently been started in addition to more celebrities recently being truthful about their opinions. To list a few: Jon Voight, Gary Sinise, Charlton Heston, Patricia Heaton, Stephen Baldwin and Kelsey Grammer.

So, here's the link to the new website for Hollywood conservatives. It should make for interesting reading, if nothing else. However, I have to ask how people (leftists in Hollywood) can get away with claiming the mantle of tolerance when they are openly hostile and discriminatory towards an entire political spectrum that makes up at least 40 percent of the country and certainly could alienate from time to time if not often the center which is another 20 percent? How do they continue to get away with this. In addition, most of them talk a lot, but few actually put their money where their mouth is. I may not agree all the time with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, but at least they put up their own money to support the causes they are passionate about, so I can at least respect that. I don't see much of this from anywhere else in Hollywood. Sure, they'll let some cause use their name (for a price), but they don't actually give money to it themselves. Now, I've rambled enough. I say we should all consider personally whether we want to support loud mouthed actors who seem to think that they have been given a forum for spouting uneducated ideals at us simply because they've made a little money and have developed a certain amount of fame. I'm all for listening to stand up comics make political jokes, but I don't want my drama actors going around spouting their beliefs to me. Sure they are entitled to them, but I am to mine to and to hear them tell it, they are the disparaged group and I'm the intolerant one. They have missed the point that tolerance must go both ways or else it isn't really tolerance. They are the intolerant ones when it comes to politics.

A new tax by any other name would smell as bad

I've been reading lately about a commission set up by Congress to study ways to finance transportation projects and upkeep around the country. While I actually support funding this at the federal level as a public good and a function of interstate commerce (I don't support a lot of the things our government funds), the ideas proposed here are way out of bounds. The official report is supposed to be released sometime near the end of January according to the Associated Press, Fox News and a bunch of other sources. I expect I'll try to read this report since it has generated a lot of thought for me. Nonetheless, according to reports, it will recommend to Congress that we increase our gas and diesel taxes by 50 percent. That's 10 cents more per gallon for those of us keeping track. Now, it seems kind of strange to me that our government asks us to reduce our driving, conserve gasoline and buy more fuel efficient cars in order to bring gas prices down and then turns around and recommends (and will probably pass) an increase in the gas tax because we the people actually responded, did as we were asked and therefore lowered tax revenues. Oh, but they'd never do this to us you say? Guess again. Of course they would, and they'd probably try to do it either soon so it is forgotten by the 2010 elections or sometime early in 2011 after the elections. In my opinion, if we are having trouble funding transportation projects in this country, we should cut out some of the other spending (entitlements) that our government does and shouldn't in order to fund these things. They are actual responsibilities of government after all and everyone would benefit. This would also be unpopular however because people are becoming more and more dependent on government handouts rather than finding ways to do it themselves. This means you can't do that either. So, what are we to do? Apparently, lie to the people is the answer.

"Charles Whittington, chairman of the American Trucking Association, which supports a fuel tax increase as long as the money goes to highway projects, said Congress may decide to disguise a fuel tax hike as a surcharge to combat climate change.
Transportation is responsible for about a third of all U.S. carbon emissions created by burning fossil fuels. Traffic congestion wastes an estimated 2.9 billion gallons of fuel a year. Less congestion would reduce greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil.
“Instead of calling it a gas tax, call it a carbon tax,” Whittington said. “As long as we label it as something else we may have the momentum and acceptance to move forward.”"

Label it as something else. In other words, lie to the people and use a trumped up new tax idea (carbon tax) in order to make people feel better about driving too much. How about encouraging projects to build housing closer to where people live and spread out the commercial a bit to make it easier for people to get there without having to drive as far. This seems a much better idea than taxing me more. Now, the worse part of all of this is in the later part of the news stories, assuming it is in them at all (the more Democratic leaning sources tend to leave a lot of this out). The report is also going to recommend that we move away from a gas tax entirely since people are going to drive more and more efficient cars and are being more efficient in their use of their vehicles. So, we should again punish us, the consumer, for doing exactly what our government has asked of us by creating this new tax to tax us for every mile we drive. And I ask, would this exempt people who drive more fuel efficient cars or would it be a flat rate based on miles driven regardless of what kind of car you have. Again, where is my incentive to buy a fuel efficient car if the government is going to tax me anyway (more punishment)? However, how would we do this anyway you ask? That brings us to the final piece to this puzzle (and this is what you don't find reported in all sources) is that the report recommends we place GPS tracking devices in every car so that the government can track our usage. In other words, on the auspices that they'd be tracking how many miles we drive in order to give an accurate tax to us, the government would now have the ability (who believes they would not use it) to track our movements in a very big brother like way. Of course, the commission assures us in the report that it could be set up in such a way to avoid that outcome. Blow it out your ear is my response to that. Do you honestly think that any government, even ours, could resist the temptation provided by such a system? So, while Obama has said he is hesitant to raise gas taxes in our current economic environment, he has said he would install a carbon cap and trade system that would do nothing to reduce carbon emissions while bankrupting our coal industry and I haven't heard him back down from that one yet. So, instead of raising gas taxes, he can couch it in the lie that we are instilling a new carbon tax. So, now we come to my title. It is still an onerous tax, regardless of what you call it and who would it hurt? The poor? many of them use public transportation and therefore wouldn't be significantly hurt by such a tax unless local jurisdictions also got taxed by the state/fed. and then passed it on to their riders. The rich? Certainly it would hit them a bit in the pocket book, but really, they aren't the ones doing most of the driving in this country. So, the middle class? Absolutely. The middle class does most of the driving in this country. It is a simple concept. Whoever does the most driving gets hurt the most by this new system. So, a tax cut for the middle class along with a new tax on driving for the middle class along with eliminating the Bush tax cuts that already helped the middle class significantly. Yeah, that's change we can believe in all right. Tax the middle class by calling it a tax cut (even if I get Obama's 1800 dollar tax cut, elimination of the Bush tax cuts raises my taxes by 3000 so I don't exactly come out ahead) and then turn around and tax us all, the middle class in particular with a carbon tax which is just a politician's way of saying fuel tax increase or even worse install a completely new way of taxation which gives the state big brother power. All of which hurts who the most. The middle class. So, to all those who believe in change, really?