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.

Earlier this week, MoveOn.org posted its “10 Things to Know About John McCain” list.  The list’s writer combines an interesting mix of inadvertent humor and slander.  Below, I have posted the list in bold, with my response to why each of the points is wrong.

I hope that this exercise does not seem futile.  I feel that it is important to spot the fallacies in statements such as these in an election year because we are sure to be confronted with them with increased frequency as we draw closer to November.

Attention to detail and making critical distinctions in debates will be vital leading up to this election.  We need to be able to spot these types of ill-informed statements and non sequiturs so that an honest, intellectual debate may ensue.  Otherwise, we will fall into the trap of playing liberal linguistic gymnastics by using broken logic and accusations of intolerance to put us conservatives back on our heels.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.

Response: 

So John McCain is racist for a position he took years ago based on valid reasoning, but the left says we're supposed to dismiss an Obama pastor who continues to make racist tirades?  Why should we excuse Obama's pastor as a product of his environment, but not excuse John McCain for being a product of his?  Race was not a big issue for an Arizona Congressman back in the 1980s, and John McCain opposed making it a national holiday not because of racism, but because of a loss of perspective.

McCain is on record stating that MLK should not have a national holiday while some of the greatest leaders in history – American Presidents such as Abraham Lincoln – do not have one.  Further, McCain stated that it would cost the country too much money to make an MLK holiday viable.  So because McCain believed we had lost perspective and because he was a hawk on finances even back then, he’s now being labeled as a racist.

      For further reference on what a truly racist perspective looks like, see Obama's two autobiographies - each exuding racist invective on every page.

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."

Response:

            Well, I really have no complaint here. McCain said the surge was the proper solution before the Bush Administration suggested it.

A military guy being pro military?  Who would have thought. Conservatives are peaceful too.  The only difference between conservatives and liberals is that, while liberals refuse to discuss war, conservatives are at least realistic enough to not take war off the table as a last resort.

Merely insinuating that McCain is a war-mongerer without substantiating it with any evidence other than a quote from a conservative columnist who is breaking Reagan's 11th commandment is an ignorant and self-serving statement.

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.

Response:

That bill sought to restrict much more than waterboarding, and afterwards McCain explained that he did not want to hamstring the CIA.  “None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.”

While McCain still opposes waterboarding, he will not take other interrogation tactics off the table.  This is the same logic as SCHIP (which I will get to in a minute).  Just because you oppose one means to an end does not mean you oppose the end. McCain still categorically refutes the use of torture, including waterboarding.

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

Response:

            So what?  I have no complaints with this statement.  As a matter of fact, not only do I have no complaints, but I whole-heartedly agree with it.  It merely seeks in evoke the emotions of liberals without providing any substantive debate.

From the second of conception, the fetus has a distinct genetic existence that is separate from that of it’s mother.  Thus, the fetus is not part of the mother's body, but a body separate and distinct from the moment of conception.

Now that little bit about the fetus’ distinct genetic code is a scientific fact - not just an opinion seeking to incite the emotions of like-minded individuals.

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.

Response:

            Exactly.  McCain voted against SCHIP along with the rest of the Republican Senators.  For those that don’t know, SCHIP was a bill that would have provided universal, government sponsored health care for children.

This is manifest evidence of the left's inability to make distinctions that do not serve their perception of the world.  McCain does not support SCHIP does NOT = McCain hates babies.  What it equals is McCain favors the private sector over the government being everyone's daddy.  Enough said.

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.

Response:

            Once again, McCain favors the private sector over the government.  People got themselves into this crisis by taking on mortgages they could not afford, and he believes people should work themselves out of the crisis and not run to the government for help like a 5 year girl child who just cut her finger.

What is this statistic regarding McCain's eight houses suppose to prove?  That McCain should start putting up the homeless in the houses he's not using?  This is the epitome of a non sequitur.

Though it’s not directly relevant to my present point, I felt it would be interesting to throw this in: The top 10 riches Senators are Democrats.  That's not a sweeping statement like, "The Senate is filled with millionaires."  That is a fact.  Don’t let liberals like MoveOn.org trick you with conclusory statements that are not supported by facts.

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Response:

            This is so blatant it does not even merit a substantive response.  Once again, there are no facts here.  MoveOn.org does not even identify the Senator who made this statement.

Wasn't this supposed to be 10 things I didn't know about John McCain, not 10 things other people have said about John McCain?

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.

Response:

            Once again the left is unable to make critical distinctions.  McCain is against receiving money from special interest groups, which opens the door to an exertion of outside influence.

However, that does not mean McCain cannot hire lobbyists to further his OWN positions.  There is a difference between being coerced into positions by some one else and promoting your own positions through some one else.

When McCain speaks of his insusceptibility to special interests, he means that he will not be subject to undue influence from others seeking to promote their own agenda I instead of his.  That doesn’t mean McCain cannot hire lobbyists to further his own positions.

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."

Response:

            Once again, we can't take pot-shots at Obama for a religion he's endorsed for years, but liberals can take pot-shots at McCain for speaking at churches where he is courting votes?

            So McCain called Parsley his spiritual guide and Parsley made a few statements against Islam.  That isn’t the same as Wright getting up on the pulpit spouting blatantly false conspiracy theories.  Parsley’s statements have some evidence of a rationale thought process.

Speaking of Obama's religion = not cool.
  Speaking of McCain's courting of religious votes in an election that will be close = describes McCain's personal views?  And "Do as I say, not as I do," screams the left!

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

Response:

            McCain opposes drilling in the ANWR Province in Alaska.  He also cosponsored the first bill in the Senate calling for mandatory reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2003, and has also been a vocal critic of the Bush Administration’s inaction regarding the environment.

            One of the far right’s most significant criticisms of Senator McCain is that they believe he continues to pander to the global warming cult.  Whether he is pandering or not is up for debate.  But he has proposed significant legislative reform regarding the environment.

So my question based on those facts is: Who gives a rat’s behind what the liberal League of Conservation Voters says?

__________

            MoveOn.org concludes their list with the following statement:  “John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network.”

            Ironically, John McCain is not who MoveOn.org make him out to be, either.

COPYRIGHT 2008 JOHN M. ROGITZ