You'll love Woods' Edge at Salt Creek Golf Retreat, Brown County, Indiana.
Saying versus Doing
My daughter came home from school the other day and told me what she’d learned in her 12th grade history class. Apparently they’re studying the election process and the current campaigns are good study examples for them. Apparently part of the learning process is “listening to what the candidates say and not what they’ll really do” though because she somehow got the idea that Barack Obama will cut someone’s taxes if elected.
The only way I can think of that she might’ve gotten this idea is if they’ve just covered the things the candidate has said and not his background or the things that he’s done, or digging deeper into what he’s said. Here are three ways that Barack Obama will raise everyone’s taxes:
Cap and Trade. In all fairness, both candidates are supporting the general idea of Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is another way of saying, “Taxing Carbon Byproducts of Energy Use”. Most energy processes generate carbon as a byproduct of burning something- gasoline, coal, etc. Cap and Trade is a Houdini-esque “smoke and mirrors” process that tries to get folks to believe that if you tax the carbon pollutant being produced, you somehow reduce the pollution problem. This is utter nonsense, but that’s never mentioned by supporters of Cap and Trade. All you wind up with is a government with an insatiable desire for your money getting more of that drug it craves. Let’s not even get into the subject of “carbon credits” and folks like Al Gore who fly around in private jets suggesting that folks buy carbon credits to offset THEIR gas usage- never mentioning that he make money off the deal by owning a carbon credit company! Anyhow, as taxes go, some are considered by liberals to be “regressive”, meaning that they don’t in some way favor the lower income folks who must pay the tax either by exempting them, by using a sliding scale, etc. Cap and Trade would be truly regressive, since folks who earn more can afford better insulation for their homes, more advanced automobiles, and pay for solar and wind power source equipment. Poorer folks can’t, and thus would shoulder more of the Cap and Trade tax burden. I don’t think Barack has mentioned that…
Making Big Oil Suffer. On occasion, Americans love to hate and government plays on that. Creating divisiveness in America allows liberals to create a crisis and then a disenfranchised group suffering from the crisis the government just created. The William Banks character in the new A&E series “The Cleaner” calls it “freaking” the addict and describes it as “…starting a fire only I can put out.” Same difference so far. Anyhow, the liberals then “adopt” the disenfranchised group, promising to come to it’s rescue and thereby secure lasting power for liberals. Once the addict is back on his/her feet, William Banks leaves. The government never does. Oil companies have been easy targets for this kind of ‘manufactured hate’ since the oil crisis of the ’70’s and because they make fairly large profits when oil prices are high. Whenever liberals need to deflect attention from their lack of real action, they put their finger on Big Oil and push. Currently, we’re seeing this in a couple of different things. Liberals are promising to remove tax incentives that Big Oil has, they’re trying to keep republicans in the Senata from making it easier for Big Oil to drill for more oil and drive down our cost of gas, and they’re talking about a “windfall profits” tax on Big Oil that will be rebated to “the American people”. Let’s not forget who pays the taxes levied on corporations- WE do. Corporations don’t have someone working in the corporation who sees taxes increase and says, “Well, I guess I need to go somewhere and earn more to pay the higher tax bill.” No, the corporation passes along the tax to it’s consumers. If taxes are raised (or tax incentives repealed) the “unintended consequence” is that gas prices rise. What’s really happening here is that all are being charge more, the difference is going to the government, and the government (in its infinite benevolence) gives it back to SOME of the American people who paid it. Since it’s not going back to everyone, and not just being left in the pockets of the consumers to begin with, we can easily see that some of the tax will be absorbed by the “cost of government”- what we pay for government employees to take money from one person’s pocket and put it into someone else’s pocket. It would be much more efficient to just leave the money in the original consumer’s pocket, but the way this tax-and-selectively-rebate process is done (”take from everyone, give back to a chosen few”) is really a redistribution of wealth. This is Marxism, not Capitalism.
One of the definitions of “windfall” is, “Sudden, unexpected profit caused by events not controlled by the beneficial person or company.” Oil companies put their capital at risk every day to find oil deposits, drill for them, transport the oil, and hire, train, and accommodate oil workers (i.e., “create jobs”). For these “events”, oil companies earn around $.40 in profit from each gallon of gas. Various government entities get about the same amount- $.40/gallon- but do nothing to earn it. Now based on our definition of “windfall”, if someone is getting a “windfall” is it going to the oil company or to the government? I’m all for reducing windfall profits on gasoline, but I suggest that the way to do it is to cut the gasoline taxes and not bother the oil companies who are actually doing something to earn their profits.
My daughter didn’t say that she learned that Barack Obama is a Marxist. When I tried to explain, she wasn’t really interested in hearing what I had to say. I asked why she listened to her teacher and not me. I’ve been around awhile and really should have seen the answer coming- “Because, Dad, he’s my TEACHER. I have to listen to him.” Then she went out to a movie with her boyfriend.
I really admire teachers, and they have a tough job especially these days. Just the same, it would probably be good for us to remember that our kids are occasionally hearing less than the whole story at school. We need to step up as parents, provide the missing details and offer ourselves up as living examples of well-educated voters that dig deeper than the speeches and rhetoric. Oh, and if “do as I say, not as I do” EVER worked for YOU in parenting YOUR children, please let me know. I gave up that idea long ago but am always trying hard to keep an open mind.
May God continue to bless America.
WhipSawJim
http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2008/09/01/saying-versus-doing/trackback/
