The Senate is currently considering a bill that would increase various taxes on gasoline by $1.50 according to minimalist estimates, and the increase could even top $5.00.  Note that does not mean that a gallon of gas will total $5.00, that means $5.00 in addition to the cost of gas as it stands right now!

            When people hear these sorts of things, I wonder if they contemplate just how much money the government receives in taxes on gas.  In 2006, more than $7.8 billion in specialized gas taxes were paid by oil companies to go along with the $90 billion that they already pay through traditional corporate income tax.  Isn’t that enough to fund about three Iraq wars simultaneously?

Currently, the Federal excise tax on gas is 18.3 cents per gallon and state excise taxes on gas average 26.8 cents per gallon.  That brings the state and Federal combined excise tax average to 45.1 cents per gallon. 

California has the highest state excise tax on gas with a 45.5 cent per gallon fee.  Only two other states even reach the 40 cent mark – New York and Connecticut.  I feel so privileged to be a Californian!

            However, that still does not account for all the taxes you indirectly pay at the pump.  According to the Americans for Tax Reform, 54 percent of the price we pay at the pump is in the form of taxes.  That large percentage is a result of direct and indirect taxes levied on every aspect of the oil industry, not just consumer-end purchases. 

The finders are taxed, the refiners are taxed, the transporters are taxed, etc.  Every middle man in the oil industry gets hit with oil taxes in addition to the income tax they already pay.  Naturally, all that cost is then passed on to the consumer.  The end result is that 54% of the total cost we pay at the pump goes to Federal and state governments. 

            Based on a $3.99 gallon of gas, if Federal and state governments were to repeal all taxes on the various levels of gasoline production and purchasing, the cost would be a manageable $1.84 per gallon!!!  Thus, out of that $3.99 gallon of gas, various governments collectively receive $2.15 of that.

            Don’t give me this business about how we need the government to maintain our roads.  I think even a fraction of the billions of tax dollars the oil industry generates every year would cover that, don’t you?

            So as if our gas prices were not outrageous enough, now Senate Democrats want to drag more money out of us at the pump.  The Democrats ramble on and on about how America is hurting right now because of the credit crunch and a slowing economy.  But at the same time, bills such as this one increase the average American’s financial burden even more.

            So what exactly does this bill, called the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, accomplish?  It cloaks higher gas taxes in a blanket of global warming guilt by creating offices and committees to report on greenhouse gas emissions, paternalistically monitor the greenhouse gas emissions of other countries, and sets up various government accounts holding money that is to be dispersed to worthy greenhouse gas related programs.  That is just a little sampling of the many provisions contained in the Lieberman-Warner Act.

            As a more specific example, according to a summary by the library of Congress on the Lieberman-Warner Act, one of the things it does is “Establishes the Carbon Market Efficiency Board, which shall observe and report on the national GHG emission market and provide cost relief measures if it determines that the market poses significant harm to the U.S. economy.” 

That’s right people, when in doubt…more government!  More committees!  More oversight!  History proves government is sure to straighten things out.

            Amusingly enough, another aspect of the bill would allow the Federal government to disperse a derivation of those intangible little things called “carbon credits.”  It’s almost as if the Democrats are taking legislative advice from Bono now.

The carbon credits, which the bill calls “emission allowances,” would be auctioned off to the highest bidder by another new governmental agency called the Climate Change Credit Corporation.  The additional proceeds generated by the auction would then go to other global warming causes that the government deems worthy.

So the next obvious question becomes: Why?  Why do we need to raise taxes and establish all these nifty new programs?  The answer: Because Senate Democrats would rather appease the global warming cult than help their constituencies by increasing the financial burden they bear in these relatively difficult economic times.

The ultimate goal behind the bill is to further discourage gasoline consumption, thus explaining the dramatic increase in gasoline tax that has been forecasted and was indeed intended.  Some of these proposals amount to what is called “cap and trade” legislation, where a cap is set on the volume of harmful emissions and the rights to allowed emissions are distributed or traded.

I think we can all agree that we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, not to mention our dependence on oil in general.  Whether one believes in global warming or not, carbon dioxide does have some effect on our environment and it would also be valuable to keep oil revenues circulating within the United States.

Yet Democrats refuse to support drilling in ANWR or off the continental shelf.  Want to know what gas prices would be if we were self-sufficient in our oil production?  Right now Saudi Arabia pays $0.91 per gallon of gas and Venezuela pays a stunning $0.12 per gallon.

Even given those statistics, the Congressional majority will not allow companies to begin drilling in the most remote parts of our country.  Even polar bears rarely venture into the remote ANWR province!

So why not nuclear?  After all, France is almost completely self sufficient by generating 78% of its energy through nuclear power and Belgium satisfies 54% of its energy needs through nuclear power.

Not surprisingly, Democrats oppose the construction of more nuclear power plants in order to satisfy our energy demands, presumably because nuclear power has the word “nuclear” in it. 

The argument Democrats present to the media in order to maintain credibility is that we would be dumping harmful nuclear waste in a remote part of the Nevada desert.  After all, if they supported dumping nuclear waste in the desert, they’d lose half their campaign contributions – the contributions that come from the tree huggers and the far left wing of the Democratic party.  However, the Democrats fail to mention that the waste would be deposited deep within Yucca Mountain and that the desert above the storage area would remain pristine. 

Another weakness in the anti-nuclear argument is that no one lives in or enjoys that remote part of the Nevada desert, so no one would even be affected by where we would put the nuclear waste anyway.  Besides, that small amount of nuclear waste pales in comparison to the over 7 million tons of carbon dioxide the United States pumps into the air every year. 

Thus, our choices are either dumping a few tons of nuclear waste in a place where it will never affect anyone, or emitting millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air for the world to breathe.  Yet Democrats still opt for the manifestly incorrect choice.  Even liberal countries like France and Belgium have enough common sense to see past the minimalistic effect that dumping a little nuclear waste would have. 

Barack Obama has made it abundantly clear that he will raise taxes if elected President.  Our current Senate majority is already trying to take more money out of our pockets in order to finance an unnecessary liberal agenda.  Imagine what would happen if we were to combine the two.

            Well readers, Pelosi and co. are at it again.  As I said in my last post, 38 of the cosponsoring forty nine Democrats still have not signed the SAVE Act discharge petition, which would bring the SAVE Act to a vote.

            As if that wasn’t insulting enough to their constituencies, Pelosi’s cronies are devising even more ways to circumvent what should be both a compromise for them and an action mandated by the American people following the McCain-Kennedy debacle.

            On top of preventing the Act from ever coming to a vote, now Rep. Joe Barca (D – California) has proposed an amendment that would include amnesty!

            Not to worry reader, you are not the only one having flashbacks to that McCain-Kennedy debacle.  If this amendment were to be approved, we would be right back to square one – in other words, right where Democrats want us to be.  They want us to be back to square one because they know square one means no progress towards immigration reform. 

            Democrats won’t even discuss immigration reform until we conservatives concede amnesty.  That is absurd.  Amnesty has become the critical issue when it comes to immigration reform. 

After the Democrats took over both houses in 2006, didn’t they say they would put an end to partisan bickering and strive to accomplish things through bipartisanship?

            That campaign promise has turned out to be amusingly false.  Democrat Heath Shuler and Republican Brian Bilbray have come up with a bipartisan compromise on immigration.  The bill they wrote does not even deal with any of the illegal immigrants already here.  It merely strengthens border security and allots additional resources to enforce existing laws.

            To top it off, the bill was cosponsored by 157 members of the House, forty nine of which are Democrats.  That appears fairly bipartisan, right?

            But alas, thirty eight of those forty nine Democrats don’t want to vote on the bill they are endorsing.  Now Joe Barca has proposed the aforementioned amnesty amendment that would allow a 5 year temporary worker permit for illegal immigrants already here, rather than to allow our law enforcement officers to continue deporting people who break our laws. 

That buys the Democrats plenty of time to conspire on how to further circumvent immigration reform.  Five years is plenty of time to pacify the immigrants and their American cult following, and after those five years I’m sure the Democrats will have a way to keep the people who participated in the 5 year worker program here forever.

            As if that wasn’t enough, Barca’s amendment to the SAVE Act would also shield employers who have hired illegal immigrants in the past, irrespective of any statute of limitations.  That means we cannot prosecute anyone who has broken existing immigration employment laws, which is in direct contrast to what the SAVE Act sought to accomplish: enforcing existing immigration laws.

            So the Barca’s logic must be as follows:  I campaigned that we should compromise.  Ok, to do that we should at least enforce existing laws until we come up with a better solution.  But in the mean time, let’s not enforce existing laws.

            Barca’s Congressional website amusingly purports that, “The American people demanded a New Direction: to make America safer, to help restore the American dream, and to restore accountability and fiscal responsibility to the people's government.”

            That’s exactly right, Mr. Congressman.  The McCain-Kennedy backlash made it abundantly clear that Americans want to make American safer by securing our borders.  So in furtherance of Barca’s “New Direction,” I’m going to restore accountability by exposing his party’s manifest hypocrisies, particularly concerning the notion of bipartisan support when they are secretly scheming against it.

            It is also worth noting that although Barca’s website lists many of his proposals and accomplishments, the SAVE Act amendment is not among them.  I’m guessing that’s because the San Bernardino voters who put him in office would be pretty ticked off if they knew about his little amendment.  The southern California area has felt more of an impact because of illegal immigration than most other parts of the country.

            For those that don’t know much about the makeup of the California constituencies, if you go anywhere east of the beach then you’re in a conservative zone.  Barca is a Democrat that managed to get elected in hostile territory.  I’m sure his voters would not be too happy if his little Pinky-and-the-Brain plan was publicized.

            Once again Congressional Democrats are showing why they are undeserving of the political majority they have received in both Houses.  In 2006, they said the American people had spoken.  The only thing is, the American people continue to speak.  They spoke after 2006 when McCain-Kennedy was introduced, and they continue to speak today through Congressional approval polls.

            Congress had a very low approval rating prior to the 2006 Democratic takeover.  Those numbers have not moved an inch since the Democrats have controlled Congress.  Not only is the party torpedoing itself when it comes to the Executive branch, now they are self destructing in the Legislative branch as well.  I, for one, cannot wait for the pendulum to swing back in our favor come November.

COPYRIGHT 2008 JOHN M. ROGITZ