Posts Tagged ‘socializing’

Obama’s Tax and Health Plans WILL Hurt Businesses – And Ultimately American Workers

October 9, 2008

There’s quite a bit of confusion about Obama’s tax plan and its effect on small business and American workers.

John McCain stated during Tuesday night’s debate that most small businesses would see their taxes increase due to Barack Obama’s tax plan.  Barack Obama corrected him and said that only a small percentage of small businesses would see their taxes go up.  Both men are wrong.  And both are right.

Obama may or may not be right when he says that only a small percentage of small business would see their taxes go up under his economic plan – as it is written now (in at least its fourth version).  He hasn’t specified whether he will tax on the basis of net or gross, whether inventory counts as total part of total income, and so on (because the media will NOT do its job and press a liberal on economic details).  But regardless of how the specifics pan out, don’t forget that Bill Clinton similarly campaigned on a tax relief for the middle class economic plan – and he immediately taxes on the middle class early in his first term.  Given the high likelihood of a Democrat-controlled Congress that is eager to have massive government social projects, another such “undeclared” tax hike on the middle class is actually quite likely.

John McCain may have been incorrect in how he phrased his objection during the debate, but he is still right enough to win the argument if the facts actually come out.  He was probably wrong in saying that most small businesses would see their taxes increase in terms of the total number of businesses.  If you earn a living mowing lawns, and have no employees, or you have a business out of your home, you probably won’t be paying any higher taxes.  But keep in mind that a small business can have as many as 500 employees (up to a 1,000 in some industries) and be classified as “small.”  And such businesses are the real engine of our economy.  If a small business even employs a handful of employees, it is likely its revenues easily exceed Obama’s $250,000 figure.  It is these businesses which hire the most workers, and it is these businesses that Obama will start taxing.  It is also these businesses which will suffer the most even from a modest increase in their operating costs.  Many are skating on pretty thin ice as it is.  They can’t just sell more stock.

If Barack Obama raises the taxes for these small business owners, there will be layoffs.  And as his plan is right now, he is promising to raise their taxes.  Realize that we are in a tough economy.  It is harder to obtain loans.  Fewer people will be buying.  Small businesses will be struggling to survive, and if Obama does what he promises to do – particularly when he is going to force businesses to start paying health care as well – you WILL see layoffs.

Meanwhile, Obama is decrying John McCain for wanting to give tax breaks to big oil.  John McCain does NOT want just to give tax breaks to big oil (actually it was OBAMA who voted with Bush for the last big energy bill giveaway to big oil); he wants to lower taxes for ALL corporations.  Most nations realize that lowering taxes for corporations has resulted in corporations creating more jobs and more tax revenues, and that more corporations will be attracted to their country.  But not the United States: we have the second highest corporate tax rate as it is.  Obama wants to be “#1.”

Is that good for our struggling economy?  Your vote on November 4 will be your answer that question.

Another thing Obama wants to do is impose requirements for businesses to provide comprehensive health care for their employees or pay into a government fund.  Small businesses would be ostensibly exempted from the requirement, and would get a 50 percent health-care tax credit to help ease their cost of employee coverage.  People with pre-existing conditions – which often impose the largest cost on the health care system – cannot be denied coverage.  Businesses who hire such people will be forced to grin and bare it.

I wonder how many older workers will be fired in order to hire new – and less expensive – younger workers?  Under Obama’s plan, I’d sure be looking at my older employees as “potential health care time bombs” just waiting to explode.

Do you think that businesses and corporations will begin to pay very close attention to the health of the employees they hire, or do you think they won’t care about how much a new workers’ mandatory health care will cost?

Between raising taxes, and mandating expensive new requirements, many businesses and corporations will experience a genuine double whammy.  Do you think American businesses are made of money, or do you think they are vulnerable?  You will be answering that question in your vote on November 4.

One thing is extremely important to understand: Obama’s health care plan is modeled on the Massachusetts plan.  How are things going there?  Well, in the three years of the program’s existence, the tiny state is now already facing cost overruns of over $400 million.  Does that sound like a rousing success?  Massachusetts is facing a projected 85% increase in its costs by 2009 – which should set up a serious red flag that such programs are MASSIVELY underfunded.

You need to understand something else that emerged from Tuesday night’s debate: is health care a basic right?  Obama answered “yes.”  What does that mean?  It means that you have a duty to provide me with health care.  You have a constitutional, government-imposed duty to give me health care – no matter what – even if it costs you and your family to do so.  Am I an alcoholic who needs a liver transplant?  You owe me a new liver.   Did I sustain a brain injury riding my motorcycle without a helmet because I like to feel the wind in my hair?  Doesn’t matter.  I have a fundamental constitutional right to that liver, or to that brain surgery and all the long months of incredibly expensive therapy.  If I have a right to health care in the sense that Barack Obama believes, nothing else matters.

Do you understand how expensive this can all get?

Do you understand that Barack Obama is essentially talking about socializing a quarter of our economy?  Do you trust your government’s track record?

Your vote will be your answer to that question.

Barack Obama’s health care plan is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion in 10 years.  But that doesn’t take into account the very sort of cost overruns and cost increases that are even now plaguing the very state that Obama is basing his own plan upon.  What is going to happen to our economy given the extremely real likelihood that Obama’s massive national plan runs into similar issues?  Do you believe our economy is strong enough to bear the brunt of these massive cost increases?

Your vote will be your answer to that question.

Let me also point out something else: if businesses and corporations are forced to absorb shocking new costs, do you believe they will just swallow their profitability, or do you think they will pass their new costs onto you through higher prices?  Barack Obama keeps talking about his “95% of Americans will get a tax break” (which means that 30-40% of Americans who don’t actually pay income taxes will get an IRS-subsidized welfare check).  Will that check compensate for the higher prices you are likely to pay across the board for virtually everything you buy?

Again, your vote on November 4 will answer that question.

Don’t be too suprised if you vote yourself right out of a job.

Advertisements

Democrats Refused To Regulate GSEs, Created Financial Tsunami

September 29, 2008

Over the past several days, the airwaves have been flooded with statements by Democrats and by the media “intelligentsia” that the financial crisis was created due to the atmosphere of deregulation that dominated during the last 8 years of the Bush administration and Republican rule.  It sounds right – Republicans generally DO favor fewer regulations which all too often stagnate business and reduce our competitiveness in a global marketplace – but in this case it is simply false.  And Democrats who point the finger of blame at Republicans over deregulation of the finance industry are lying to you.

We can begin by looking at leading Democrat Charles Schumers’ incredibly disingenuous and patently demagogic statements blaming Republicans for “a lack of regulation”:

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York says a lack of regulation by the Bush administration is responsible for the current economic troubles. The New York Sun reports Schumer says, “Eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of ‘the market can do no wrong,’ have led us down a short path to economic recession.”

But Schumer fails to mention he has been a leading voice of deregulation. The Sun reports he championed the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, the law which separated commercial and investment banking.

He also wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal in 2006 which warned about what he called “overzealous regulators” and opposed a bill in 2005 that would have transformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from large investment funds into “conduits” that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities and sold them on the market.

We can go back to 2003 to see just how fallacious the Democrats charge against Republicans are.  In 2003, President Bush tried to implement regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were at the epicenter of the current housing financial crisis.  In the words of a New York Times story:

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Notice that Barney Frank – in an effort to stave off Republican efforts to regulate the housing finance industry, claimed that there was no problem.

And Barney Frank, the Chairman of the powerful House Finance Committee, and a key player in the Democrats’ effort to shape the bailout package now, represented the Democrats’ philosophical opposition to reform or regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

The strategy of presenting themselves to Congress as the champions of affordable housing appears to have worked. Fannie and Freddie retained the support of many in Congress, particularly Democrats, and they were allowed to continue unrestrained. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass), for example, now the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, openly described the “arrangement” with the GSEs at a committee hearing on GSE reform in 2003: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping to make housing more affordable . . . a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing.” The hint to Fannie and Freddie was obvious: Concentrate on affordable housing and, despite your problems, your congressional support is secure.

The effort failed with Democrats in lock-step effort against the Republicans efforts to implement regulatory reform of the Housing Finance industry.

Again, in 2005, there was yet another Republican-led effort: the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  Four Republicans’ names were on the Senate version of the bill, and twenty Republicans’ names were on the House version.  The bill was killed because Democrats in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs unanimously voted against the bill, and Senate Democrats signaled their intent to filibuster its passage.

John McCain, in vigorous support of the 2005 effort to regulate an increasingly out-of-control industry, said in part:

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Franklin Raines, a Democrat and a Clinton appointee, misrepresented $11 billion in Fannie Mae’s accounting system in order to game the system so that he and other senior executives could collect multi-million dollar bonuses.  Fannie Mae was fined some $500 million for the violations.  Raines paid a $25 million fine for his role in the corruption.   Leland Brendsel – yet another Democrat – had earlier been forced out as Chairman of Freddie Mac under a similar cloud of suspicion.

We learn that, in the fall of 2004:

At a dramatic hearing in Richard Baker’s subcommittee, Fannie’s chair, Franklin Raines, stood by the company’s accounting, claiming that Fannie was being victimized by an overzealous regulator.

Notice that Raines – who as already shown was later proven to have committed fraud – blamed Republican regulators for misrepresenting the health of GSEs that we now known were on the verge of a disaster.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, supporting the Republican-led effort to place the very sort of regulations that Democrats now claim that Republicans prevented, said:

“If [Fannie and Freddie] continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road.” He added, “Enabling these institutions to increase in size–and they will, once the crisis, in their judgment, passes–we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

Peter Wallison wrote in a May 2005 article describing Democrats’ opposition at the time:

The sudden appearance of this new threat changed the attitude of the GSEs toward the legislation. Although they had begun 2005 offering conciliatory statements and suggesting that they had no serious problems with the regulatory proposals that Congress was then contemplating, the GSEs were clearly alarmed by the idea that their portfolios might be limited or reduced. Fannie and Freddie and their constituent support groups–the homebuilders and the realtors, among others–made clear that they would fight limitations on GSE portfolios, and Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats made clear that they, too, would oppose any effort to limit this aspect of the GSEs’ operations.

Wallison also stated:

Under these circumstances, allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.

A Bloomberg article describes how the lack of timely reform created an economic tsunami:

Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street’s efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn’t make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Keven Hasset concludes an article titled, “How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis“, concludes by saying:

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Democrat’s ‘Commonsense Plan’ Revealed: Let’s Nationalize the Oil Industry

June 19, 2008

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi swept the Democrats into power two years ago with the following promise:

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority’s failure to address gas prices follows Pelosi’s statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

And did Pelosi and her fellow Democrats deliver on their “commonsense plan”? Sure they did. They demonized Bush, demonized the oil industry, got a bunch of television face-time presiding over a bunch of hearings where they didn’t hear a word the experts said, and basically demagogued their way to gas prices that have shot through the roof since their promise to fix the problem.

House Minority Leader (and Republican) John Boehner observed the second anniversary of Pelosi’s Great Big Fat Giant Pandering Demagoguing Lie by observing:

House Republican leaders on Tuesday challenged Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to release a plan to lower gas prices that they say Democrats touted when they were in the minority.

“Two years ago this week, you stated that House Democrats had a ‘commonsense plan’ to ‘lower gas prices,’ ” the letter said. “In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices affecting working families and every sector of our struggling economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that you reveal this ‘commonsense plan’ so we can begin work on responsible solutions to help ease this strain.”

The letter is signed by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), Policy Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) as well as other members of leadership: Reps. Kay Granger (R-Texas), John Carter (R-Texas), Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

In a press release dated April 24, 2006, Pelosi said, “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.” The letter cited policies put in place during the GOP control of Congress that the Speaker claimed had raised prices on American consumers to benefit oil companies.

The House GOP leaders’ letter points out that the price of gasoline has spiked $1.18 since Democrats took over in January and stands at $3.51.

“Once a nightmare scenario, $4 gasoline is now a very real possibility of becoming a summer staple,” the letter stated. “In some cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, it is already a startling reality.”

Pelosi’s office did not respond immediately for comment.

In my neck of the woods, for the record, gas was $4.45 a gallon today at the discounted Sam’s Club station (June 18, 2008).

But don’t worry: the Democrat’s are working on their “commonsense plan” even now…

Ta Daaa! Let’s nationalize the oil refineries!

It’s the commonsense Marxist totalitarian thing to do. Our good buddy Hugo Chavez over in socialist Venezuela did it. C’mon, guys; it’ll be even more fun than controlling health care!

As President Bush implored the Congress to open up ANWR, the coastal shelves, and other known oil reserves for drilling, and as he called on Congress to open up more refineries, one Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) shared The Plan:

At one point during press conference, Hinchey of New York seemed to veer from the Democratic talking points to suggest that U.S. refineries be nationalized.

“Our Republican friends also talk about the need to, you know, set up ways in which the material can be refined; refineries. Well, do we own refineries? No, the oil companies own refineries.

Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly I think that’s a good idea. Then we could control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the market.”

When it came time for reporters to ask questions, a reporter jumped on this:

Q I’ve got a question about the issue of — you mentioned the issue of nationalizing refineries and having nationally owned refinery capacity. A lot of other countries have nationalized their oil industry. You mentioned that the oil and gas companies may not want to drill on these lands, so that they can take advantage of ever- higher gas prices. Is there any thought to having bills that would nationalize some of these refineries or start a national oil company?…

… REP. HINCHEY: “Yeah, there’s thought going on about this. Frankly, this is something that I think is essential. And I think it’s only a matter of time before it takes place. I think that the — we’ll — what we have to do has to be in the interest of the American people, primarily, basically, in the interest of the American people, not in the interest of some major corporations. And the determination as to how much of this very important material gets refined, and consequently out on the market, is in the hands of the oil companies. And they just do. They make those decisions based upon their efforts to drive up the price as high as they can and keep it as high as they can for as long as they can.

So I think that this is something that this Congress should be thinking about. And certainly it’s something that I’m thinking about, and I think that there are a few others already in the Congress who are thinking about it as well.”

Hinchey joins prominent Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who earlier used the even better term: “socialize,” to describe The Plan To Socialize Everything:

A report by Fox News, captured in a clip posted on YouTube.com, showed Waters challenging the president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, to guarantee the prices consumers pay will go down if the oil companies are allowed to drill wherever they want off of U.S. shores.

Hofmeister replied: “I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress, ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down.”

The Shell exec said paying $5 at the pump “will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.”

Waters responded, in part, “And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …”

The congresswoman paused to collect her thoughts.

“Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …”

The oil executives responded, according to Fox News, by saying they’ve seen this before, in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.

Well, it’s a good thing the Democrats are finally releasing their “commonsense plan.” I was getting worried that the Democrat’s promise to fix the high oil prices were nothing more than their usual pandering.

Congress couldn’t even run a cafeteria without driving it into the ground. But don’t worry: I’m sure they’ll do much better running the health and oil industries.

What will be the legal grounds for this move? Well, the same Democrats who care so deeply about the rights of foreign terrorists that they want to give them full access to the rights and privileges of U.S. courts take a slightly different tact with big oil companies. At the last round of the staged communist show trial known as the Big Oil Hearings back in May, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) told the oil executives, “I can’t say that there’s evidence that you are manipulating the price but I believe that you probably are so prove to me that you’re not.”

You see, in the bizarro world of Democrats, terrorists must be considered innocent until proven guilty with all the rights and privileges of the American legal system, whereas American companies – and the American citizens who run them – are simply guilty until proven innocent.

Oh, socializing/nationalizing the oil industry isn’t their only idea, of course: they’ve already managed to brilliantly send food prices through the roof by mandating corn-based ethanol (people in the third world are literally starving because of this idiocy), which produces an incredibly expensive government-subsidized fuel source that requires more energy to produce than it actually generates. And Democrats also plan to attack the oil industry with a “windfall profits” tax that oil companies would immediate pass on to consumers (Jimmy Carter tried this, and it backfired on him too, but fortunately for Democrats no one pays much attention to history any more).

One day, the American people will finally hold Democrats accountable for their stupid, shortsighted, ignorant, pandering, demagoguing nonsense.

I’ve got dibs on a cave I came across on a hike. When our society comes crashing down because it was starved of the energy (by which I mean ‘oil’) that was essential to sustain it, it will be nice to have a nice warm place to go instead of freezing in the dark. And we won’t let the Democrats take over the new energy source (by which I mean ‘firewood’) – at least for a couple hundred years until some future society sufficiently dumbs down enough to give them power again.

Maybe liberalism is some kind of means to control the growth and success of the human race: from the slime, to the protozoa, to the fish, to the monkey, to the ape, to the human, to the liberal… and then right back down the drain to the slime again.

Understand one thing: Democrats don’t give a damn about how much it costs you to drive to work. They care about “global warming” and “maintaining a pristine environment.”

I’ve got a couple of articles on the global warming issue: “What You Never Hear About Global Warming,” and “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming.” Realize the most heinous regimes in human history were all preceded with lofty claims; and that the big government Illuminati can run roughshod over any one and any thing when they are acting in the name of “saving the planet from ourselves.”

The secret truth of the matter is that Democrats do notrepeat do not – want to increase the oil supply. They want to reduce the use of oil by means of conservation and by embracing windmills and such (well, as long as the windmills aren’t in their back yards, anyway). The only way Americans will conserve oil is if they are forced to do so. And the only way Americans will be forced to do so is if oil becomes a lot more expensive than it is now.

I would love it if Democrats – who don’t want to increase the oil supply in favor of conservation – put their money where their mouth is and quit using up the oil supply and started conserving. Quit driving; quit heating your homes in the winter; that sort of thing. Then both sides could have what they wanted: Democrats could conserve; and Republicans could have an increased supply. But that sort of idea rests on the premise that Democrats are not hypocrites – so it will never happen.

I watch darn near everyone go flying past me on the freeway while I drive the speed limit darn near every single day, and I know for a fact that Americans aren’t particularly interested in “embracing conservation.”

Enter the Democrats, who don’t know how to fix anything, but sure know how to massively screw things up through taxes, legislation, regulation, litigation judicial activism, and more lies than you can shake a stick at on your best stick-shaking day.

When you are paying $10 a gallon the way they already are in other socialist European countries, just think about those happy polar bears.

Maybe you can recite the liberal-environmentalist mantra to yourself to calm down: “Polar bears are more important than my kids. Polar bears are more important than my kids. Polar bears are more important than my kids…