Here’s a real-life example that speaks to the benefits of the Fair Tax in attracting business from around the world. It is the exodus of business from the United States as they escape the ‘tax hammer’ of the politicos in Washington. They are moving their domicile to Switzerland. How’s that for an economic stimulus?
As the Obama administration prepares to hit the energy industry with a $10 Billion tax ‘incentive’ (his word, not mine), the law of free-market economics does what it does just as sure as gravity does what it does, it ignores the will of the political class.
The tidy towns and mountain vistas of Switzerland are an unlikely setting for an oil boom. Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland — mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama’s tax-seeking administration.
In a country with scant crude oil production of its own, the virtual energy boom has changed the canton or state of Zug, about 30 minutes’ drive from Zurich, beyond all recognition. Its economy was based on farming until it slashed tax rates to attract commerce after World War Two.
The Fair Tax would, all on its own and without increasing our national debt, change the global business paradigm by making the United States the tax haven for businesses around the world.
‘Limbaugh’s political influence is not vast at all.’ That, according to Air America Radio host of the Ring of Fire program, Mike Papantonio.
That’s why I thought it odd that he would go to all the trouble to offer his political advice to RNC Chariman Michael Steele. Which is, have Rush start a third party.
I’m sure Rush will be taking advice from Mike Papantonio and/or Michael Steele. Besides he wouldn’t take the pay cut. Look what good advice it is. Split the party, dilute what little solidarity there is in the GOP, guarantee Democrats stay in power in Washington. Yeah, that sounds like a plan Rush would like. 🙄
The heartburn Papantonio has with Rush is two-fold. Professional envy is probably his biggest motivator. Rush is a conservative first, not a Republican first. And, Papantonio knows that conservatism is the antidote to the liberalism / socialism as proscribed by the Democrats in Washington today.
That one man, Rush, can create such an uproar on the Left belies the irrelevancy that is ascribed to him by Mike. It takes away from examining the real issues, like how Obama’s Cap and Trade plan will raise the cost on the poor for gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, and electricity.
The poor can thank Obama for not raising their taxes. The poor can also thank Obama for replacing it with higher fuel and energy costs on them. And Rush can stay right where he is.
Ever wondered why we haven’t already achieved energy independence? There is no one you can find in Washington, from any party, that won’t say they are for energy independence. Everyone is for energy independence. So what’s the problem?
The problem is the political language barrier. Probably first invented by President Clinton when his Lewinsky defense was, ‘it depends on what the definition of IS is.’ The political parties today are not speaking the same language and the media is speaking the dialect of the Left. It presumes that the other side is just stupid and there is no common ground to be found.
Energy Independence, the Right– The whole point of energy independence as far as conservatives and most Republicans are concerned is primarily a security issue. The fact that we are buying 70 percent of the oil what we currently use from foreign sources, most of which don’t like us very much, is a point not forgotten by those on the political right. Conservatives are reminded of the gas lines and rationing that went on here under the Carter administration after Iran started using their oil as a weapon against us. Like Russia, btw, is doing to its neighbors today and Chaves has threatened to do to us. To mitigate this concern, to become energy independent means to develop enough of our own resources to protect our own national security should the middle east one day shut off the valves. Or, if Iran blows them up.
There would be two other benefits to becoming energy independent. One would be a private sector, high paying, job creation project in states all over the country that wouldn’t increase our national debt one thin dime. It would also stop the annual flow of $700 billion to countries that would just as easily cut us off and sell to China or any other country, and keep that money right here in our own country, and putting it to work in our own economy.
Unfortunately, you will be hard pressed to find a liberal speaking to the national security aspect of oil resources in the United States.
Energy Independence, the Left– to the left it means energy replacement. That is to say, not to use fossil fuels. To be energy independent does not mean to have and use our own resources as opposed to someone else’s. It means to not use our own resources in favor of some technology of the future that has yet to be developed. The ‘green’ lobby, high on the list of political allies to Democrats, is leading the agenda to this definition of energy independence. This is fine and dandy in a perfect world. But it totally ignores the security aspect of not having enough of our own resources if, say tomorrow, OPEC or an oil producing State decides to cut production or worse, cut us off, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
A fact that can’t be ignored is the fact that fossil fuels are the fuel for the worlds’ economic engine and will stay that way unless and until some other source can be brought to market. To not exploit our own resources, as a bridge to some technology of the future and our own national security, is just as irresponsible as forcing us to limit the use of fossil fuels, no matter where they come from, to the detriment of our economy.
While developing this post, other terms and words have come to light that play a major role in inhibiting economic, social, and political progress. Here is a list of some that came out of the news in just the last 3 days. It is what we, as conservatives, are up against.
Spending / Investing
Bipartisan / the political right ignoring their principles and voting with Democrats.
The Obama campaign is responding to posts like this ‘How Obama Supports The Coal Industry‘ by dismissing it as ‘“right wing blogs” that “wildly edited to take it out of context.”’ They go further to say that Barack actually said the opposite of what he actually said. ?? OK, so they are lying and the dumb masses will accept it rather than check it out for themselves. Consider this, have you ever known anyone, let alone a presidential candidate, that needed so many people to explain what he says? Or rather, to explain away what he says? Their problem is simple. When he actually says what he means, his surrogates come out to say that no, that’s not what he means. The whole Obama campaign has been an illusion in so many ways. But I digress.
To this subject, the Obama campaign added ‘“In the full interview Obama actually praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is ‘an illusion,’” the campaign explained.’ They are word wizards for sure. In fact, Obama did praise coal (as a fossil fuel) as being responsible for about half of the electricity production in the country. He did not praise coal power plants that use it, and certainly not the building of more coal power generating plants. In fact, as far as coal power plants go, he wants to ‘take it off the table.’
Here are his words, not taken out of context.
What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
That is a statement, ‘for us to take coal off the table.’ His position is to take coal power plants off the table. That was not a conditional statement to use coal power plants in a cleaner way. He intends to NOT use it. He intends for the ‘caps and trade system’ to penalize any company that wants to build a coal-fired power plant, and if they are stupid enough to try it and risk bankruptcy, through fines that he defines as a ‘huge sum’ that he says ‘will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.’
Where am I missing the part that says, like his campaign claims, that the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion?
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the entire transcript from the above video. Then have the courage to call a spade a spade and recognize that the only illusion here is the Obama campaign’s spin on Obama’s own words.
Barack Obama: I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I’m a coal state. And that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But…let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal–I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
Have your candles ready. It is hard to believe how Pennsylvania could be a blue state when one considers Obama’s position on coal. Keep in mind that 49 percent of all electrical power in the United States is generated by coal-powered generators. This audio clip is Barack Obama speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, SF Gate.
Barack Obama: I haven’t been some coal booster.
Joe Biden: No coal plants here in America, build them if they’re going to build them over there.
And once again, speaking to his character, saying one thing while meaning another to someone whose vote you want, the Huffington Post saw it for what it was last May.
UPDATE 11/3/08, 23:02: The Obama campaign is responding to the above news by dismissing it as ‘“right wing blogs” that “wildly edited to take it out of context.”’ They go further to say that Barack actually said the opposite of what he actually said. ?? OK, so they are lying and the dumb masses will accept it rather than check it out for themselves.
The Obama campaign added ‘“In the full interview Obama actually praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is ‘an illusion,’” the campaign explained.’ They are word wizards for sure. In fact, Obama did praise coal (as a fossil fuel) as being responsible for about half of the electricity production in the country. He did not praise coal power plants that use it, and certainly not the building of more coal power generating plants. In fact, he wants to ‘take it off the table.’
Here are his words, not taken out of context.
What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
That is a statement, ‘for us to take coal off the table.’ That was not a conditional statement to use coal power plants in a cleaner way. He intends to NOT use it. He intends for the caps and trade system to penalize any company that wants to build a coal fired power plant, and if they are stupid enough to try it and risk bankruptcy, through fines that he defines as a ‘huge sum’ that he says ‘will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.’
Where am I missing the part that says, like his campaign claims, that the idea of eliminating coal is an illusion?
But don’t take my word for it. Here is the entire transcript from the above video. Then have the courage to call a spade a spade and recognize that the only illusion here is the Obama campaign’s spin on Obama’s own words.
Barack Obama: I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote. Despite the fact that I’m a coal state. And that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But…let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal–I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
It is bad enough that the United States spends over $700 billion per year on oil resources from the Middle East and elsewhere, when we have enough resources of our own which could be developed right here in the United States, creating jobs all over the country in the process.
The confluence of two problems, energy dependency and the financial market meltdown, seem to have the world looking to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia for help. President Bush took a trip to Saudi Arabia with his hand out for more production and lower oil prices. Now British Prime Minister Gordon Brown goes there looking for money for the International Monetary Fund’s ‘bailout reserves.’
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Sunday he is confident that Saudi Arabia will contribute to the International Monetary Fund’s bailout reserves after he promised business leaders in the Gulf that they would have a say in any future new world economic order.
When you are the one in control of the oil spigot, with cash reserves that are as large as your oil reserves, it is not hard to imagine, nor is it surprising, to see this kind of attitude ‘from those that don’t like us very much.’
A senior British government source, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, said that during talks the Saudis had been concerned about becoming a “milk cow” to prop up “basket case” economies in other parts of the world.
Both the energy and economic ‘crises’ can be solved by restoring common sense to both. By using our own resources and by paying attention to sound business practices by not offering mortgages to people that have no ability to pay. Those people are called ‘renters.’ In the meantime, with help from Saudi Arabia or not, the world will have to pay the consequences of our bad decisions.
On Tuesday, Nov 4, Americans can choose which of the two candidates, which of two parties, have the answer to today’s problems. Or at least an inclination as to which way to proceed. The choice seems pretty clear to me. One party wants to cut oil dependency by a small percentage, the other party wants to eliminate it. One party wants to make home ownership a ‘right,’ and the other wants to enable every citizen to get their own home based on their own efforts.
Socialism is easy, the government makes decisions for us, and innovation and productivity are depressed. Freedom is hard, you have to make your own decisions, innovation, productivity and the rewards that come with it are unlimited.
A week ago, Pensacola was preparing to welcome Gov. Palin outdoors at the end of the runway at the airport. It’s a good thing they changed the venue to the Civic Center for two reasons. The original thousand tickets got swallowed up in a few hours, and, it rained. I was among the 10,000+ people who stood in line in the rain to get in the Civic Center. Afterwards, I found out that the fire Marshall had declared the event full and not everyone that came could get in.
The anticipation and enthusiasm of the crowd was as good as it gets for any rock concert I’ve been too, and I’ve been to a lot in my day. Most of them I can remember, but I digress.
The big difference was that the people in line were sober, orderly, polite, of all ages, and anxious to see Sarah Palin.
She spoke of how John McCain and she will change and shake up things in Washington and get the economy going with lower spending, lower taxes, on energy, and that we will continue to win the war instead of merely end it. She listed contrasts between the Obama campaing and what they want to do and the McCain campaign and what they want to do. She effectively laid it out as a clear choice for voters.
She didn’t let Obama slide on some of his unsavory alliances or associations as relates to his judgment and character. She reiterated the Bill Ayers saga. Today for the first time, she also referenced two of his recent economic advisers who were also heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And from their roaring response, the audience knew who she was talking about without mentioning Johnson and Raines by name.
Having been to the last VP visit prior to the 2004 election, when Vice President Cheney held an event at PJC, the difference in turnout and enthusiasm was striking. I think if they were asked who you would rather have a cup of coffee with or go hunting with, Cheney or Palin? Palin would win by a landslide. 😆
Below was the scene when Gov. Palin took the stage. Just a 60 second sample of the excitement. My position was beside the media’s camera platform where there was zero commotion during the entire event.
In the last few days, Democrat candidate for President Sen. Barack Obama gave us the benefit of two one-on-one interviews to get to know some of what he has planned for an Obama administration. One was with Bill O’Reilly last week and the other was at Columbia University in New York tonight called the ServiceNation Summit Forum. In both settings, Obama addressed his plan for energy independence. And where energy independence is concerned, he has no plan, and here’s why.
With Bill O’Reilly on the subject of energy independence, Obama said he has a plan. It is to spend $150 billion (coming from oil companies) over ten years to develop solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. To be realistic about it, $150 billion over ten years is not all that much considering the task at hand. He didn’t say anything about nuclear power until O’Reilly asked him about that specifically. He then said ‘oh yeah, sure we’ll expand nuclear power.’ He did not mention drilling for more oil and gas. Instead, he rested his case on the hope that we will be able to actually become energy independent with scientific breakthroughs that he hopes will come. And he justified this position by saying ‘Kennedy didn’t know how we were going to get to the moon.’ I’m beginning to see what he means by hope and change. The change is we’re going to govern on hope.
Obama addresses energy one more time near the end of the interview when discussing the problem with Putin invading Georgia and threatening the United States if we put a defensive missile system in Poland, and what he would do about Putin. Obama’s said short of a military response, there are two levers we can use. One is economic which would require help from Europe. Because Russia is economically tied to Europe and to a lesser extent the United States. The other he said, was to ‘get our energy policy straight.’
Fast forward to tonight at Columbia University. The sum of his statement on energy was this one sentence. From the transcript . . .
We’re going to have a bold energy plan that says that we are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20 or 30 percent over the course of a decade or two.
Twenty or thirty percent over a decade or two? In a matter of a week, his plan went from 10 years to 20 years. And he is not sure by how much he can do it. 20% OR 30%? Is that even a goal? And even at that, there is no independence. Right now, we import 70 percent of our oil. Do the math with me here. If Obama can cut that by 20 or 30 percent then his definition of energy independence is to import 40 to 50 percent from foreign sources instead of 70 percent.
If this is what Barack Obama calls energy independence, and getting our energy policy straight, then he isn’t the one to get us there.
Using corn-based ethanol as a fuel alternative has not accomplished what the ‘experts’ thought it would do. What it has done so far is to drive up the price of corn-based products world-wide. You’ve seen this in the grocery store in higher prices. Corn has gone from $2 per bushel to $8 per bushel, hitting the poor people in Central and South America especially hard. It has caused the United Nations to complain that they can no longer feed the poor that they used to, let alone expand their aid program to feed the world’s hungry. It has also depressed the cattle and poultry industries, and any industry that uses corn as food, whether for people or animals.
Texas governor Rick Perry, (R-TX) puts it this way, ‘we do not want to be forced to choose between fueling our cars and feeding our families.’ In his state, higher corn prices are . . .
devastating the livestock industry to the point that Texas cattle feeders have been operating in the red since 2007.
Even our largest agriculture companies are taking a hit. Pilgrim’s Pride and Smithfield both posted huge losses this past year. Tyson’s bonds were downgraded. And New Way Pork, Texas’s largest independent pork producer, has been driven out of business by feed costs that have risen 50% since 2004.
In an effort to stop the bleeding, Gov. Perry asked the EPA to cut the grain-based ethanol mandate in half for one year.
Last Thursday, the EPA announced it was denying my request. Why? Because the agency’s agriculture and energy economists said the mandates are not causing sufficient damage to warrant action.
The EPA didn’t say how much damage to the economy they were hoping for. But one thing is clear. Using food products for fuel is a huge mistake.
Perry says . . .
Supporters of the ethanol mandate have their hearts in the right place if they want to diversify this nation’s fuel supply. But artificially propping up an industry to the detriment of the vast majority of Americans is bad policy. And that’s what this mandate does.There are many sources of renewable energy in addition to corn-based ethanol. It is time America took steps to develop the technology to make use of these sources.
Only a bureaucracy like the EPA can argue with that. Time has come to inject this agency with a good dose of common sense.
In his own words, President Mikheil Saakashvili describes what is going on in his country and why. In light of everything going on in Georgia, don’t come away thinking that it won’t affect us here in the United States. Among the first targets that Russia sought to destroy, was Georgia’s oil port. If you still do not believe that oil is the lifeblood of not only our economy but of the world economy, you better think again. But this is not a war for oil. This war is for the future of freedom in Europe.
As of this writing, Russia has pressed on beyond the disputed territories in Georgia. In this David and Goliath war, Russia seems hell bent on its old ways of military imperialism. This time in a democratically elected government State.
From today’s Wall Street Journal, President Saakashvili’s comments begin . . .
As I write, Russia is waging war on my country.
On Friday, hundreds of Russian tanks crossed into Georgian territory, and Russian air force jets bombed Georgian airports, bases, ports and public markets. Many are dead, many more wounded. This invasion, which echoes Afghanistan in 1979 and the Prague Spring of 1968, threatens to undermine the stability of the international security system.
