The DaleyGator

 Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives to Capitol Hill, to explain why gas prices are so darned high, and  most importantly in their minds, to make themselves seem important, righteously indignant, and to convince Americans that they are looking out for us.

Among those executives summoned were Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation. And, as Michelle Malkin points out, these men stole the show.

But, of course, we ought to have expected, the people that actually do business know a whole lot more than those that do nothing but take money from American businesses and individuals to score political points, and create more entitlements. Of course, we are not supposed to see through today’s Senatorial grand standing are we?

Nope! We are, instead, supposed to swoon at how the wonderful Senators on the Judiciary Committee care about us little people aren’t we? We are supposed to look wide-eyed at each other and say ” Oh my, see, they really like us and are protecting our interests!” Hogwash!

They care about expanding their power, and keeping us as suckings at the national teat is paramount to that end isn’t it? Yes, my friends it is. These senators are following not our Founders guidelines, but those of Marx and Engels.

Not only are the members of this committee trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes, but they are proving just how clueless they are about basic economics. Of course, they are betting we will not examine their words and actions. They are betting that we will not think with our heads but rather with our emotions.

They are betting that we will be so angry about fuel prices that we will never look at reality. Instead they figure Americans will buy the “evil oil companies” lie. As long as it is fed to us enough times, we are bound to buy into it aren’t we? Surely!

So the question now is are they right? Will we think? Will we look at facts? Will we understand basic economics better that our would be masters? Or will we just accept their phony outrage and their political circus act?

As you read this, ask yourself how these pinheads ever got out of grade school, much less rose to the rank of US Senator.

Of course, this was about the Senate Democrats, and some Senate Republicans trying to score cheap political points by pretending to scold the evil oil barons for ripping off hard working Americans.

The fact is, these Senators ought to be working on doing what they CAN do to ease the burden of high gas prices. How about allowing America to drill for AMERICA’S oil? Sure we know, it would not help for a period of years, but it WILL help sooner if we start sooner.

The Senate COULD take actions that WOULD help, but they much prefer to sit there pretending they are fixing the problem when, in fact they ARE much of the problem!

Why is America NOT using nuclear energy? Why are we not building new refineries? Why are we not using OUR own resources? Instead we talk of windfall profit taxes? Those were disastrous when tried before. Are our Senators insane enough to think they would work today?

I find it odd, nay, I find it despicable that our Senate calls oil companies to answer for something that is not their fault. And while our Senators bluster and present themselves as acting in our interest, they have in fact done every damned thing they could to stymie our energy production.

 They have regulated, and OVER regulated the oil companies, they have blocked, and continue to block, nuclear energy, and other alternative energy sources. They have heaped regulations and taxes onto the oil companies at OUR expense.

They bitch and whine about our energy dependence, then turn around and do all they can to KEEP us dependent on foreign oil. They do not possess the willingness to seriously look at mending the problem. Instead they can only look for ways to gouge oil companies, and in the process, us, of course, for all they can.

Let this serve as the latest example as to why NOTHING IS FREE! Someone always has to pay!

What Obama left out. High taxes, highly union, and too much regulation equals bitter!

In the firestorm touched off by Barack Obama’s comments about those who “cling to” guns and religion out of economic resentment, most analysis missed a crucial point: The “bitterness” felt in the so-called Rust Belt is mainly a product of high-tax, highly unionized states. While there are pockets of prosperity in Pennsylvania, upstate New York, Ohio and Michigan, a good deal of this area is economically depressed. That’s not because of Washington’s policies (or lack thereof). These policies aren’t killing Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and Florida. While southern states do have problems, their governments generally don’t smother economic growth by layering on ever-rising taxation, regulation and expenses. They don’t permit workers to be forced to join closed-shop unions. No one in D.C. – Obama, Clinton, McCain or Superman – can fix the Rust Belt’s self-inflicted wounds. Western New York offers a prime example. Despite proximity to major markets, a long international border with a major trading partner, a well-developed transport system, untold natural splendors and a well-educated workforce, the Buffalo area’s population shrinks every year. Why? High taxes, high government costs and forced unionization are major factors. Very good article. Over-regulation, over-taxation, and the state of unions do not help American workers, or the middle class at all. The little slices of Marxism are what is creatin bitterness in these areas, not Conservatives. Obama, of course, would try to alleviate these conditions how exactly? By doing even more of what has created the problem. This is the essence of why Liberalism fails. It’s proponents cannot accept failure or learn from it. Instead they just try the same failed ideas over and again.

I like this guy! WE need many more like him!

A man has sawn his car in half with an angle-grinder in protest at it being clamped outside his home.Ian Taylor, from Tredworth, Glos, said the untaxed Ford Fiesta was parked on his drive with only part of a rear wheel poking out on to the pavement.The 40-year-old builder said the vehicle was going to be scrapped anyway, but he wanted to make a point.

He wants to raise capital gains taxes, not to raise revenues, but to be fair. Now he wants to go down the path of redistribution by imposing windfall taxes on evil oil companies. I wonder if his latest desire for fairness would cost the average American at the pump?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama‘s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said. The plan would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal. The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can’t afford their energy bills.

Obama’s tax policies? All about ENVY and GREED! 

Gibson asked Obama: “You have said . . . you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. . . . Why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?”Obama’s answer: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair. “

Notice how Obama keeps talking about FAIR, and how too much profit is UNFAIR. Charlie Gibson raises the point that reducing the capital gains rate increases revenue repeatedly, but Obama does not seem to grasp that. Video is at Hot Air

I said long ago that after the greedy government types were through milking the cigs cash cow they would seek another. Well my fellow beer drinkers….

Joe Six-pack will have to pay a lot more to get his buzz on if Assemblyman Jim Beall has his way.

The San Jose Democrat on Thursday proposed raising the beer tax by $1.80 per six-pack, or 30 cents per can or bottle. The current tax is 2 cents per can. That’s an increase of about 1,500 percent.

Beall said the tax would generate $2 billion a year to fund health care services, crime prevention and programs to prevent underage drinking and addiction.

“The people who use alcohol should pay for part of the cost to society, just like we’ve accepted that concept with tobacco,” Beall said.

Behold the natural progression of the dreaded disease that is Marxism.

Yep! LIke I have said long ago, Mrs. Messiah is far more in tune with Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, than with Madison, Jefferson, Washington and Franklin

H/T Jawa

And HOW! 

The Clintons have made a $100-million fortune since leaving the White House, but a Politico analysis found that hasn’t kept Bill Clinton from taking full advantage of the publicly funded perks offered to ex-presidents.

In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined.

The price tag for Clinton’s federal retirement allowance from 2001 through the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for George H. W. Bush’s and $4 million for Jimmy Carter’s during the same period.

Since 2001, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents — from his pension to his staff’s salaries and benefits to supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a group, they spent $484,000 on telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in the same span.

The cost of Clinton! It just keeps rising. 

How big IS Hog Murtha? $2 Billion big!

H/T Hot Air, Instapundit

PORKMANIA!

 Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.

The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. Obama’s wife works, money for several projects linked to campaign donors and support for more than 200 towns, civic institutions and universities in Illinois.

But as the Senate debated a bill to restrict the controversial method of paying for home-state projects — a measure defeated Thursday evening — Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign also said that only about $220 million worth of his requests had been approved by Congress. And among those that had been killed were his request in 2006 for $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a vice president.

So, he WANTED to screw the taxpayers out of $740 million, BUT only managed to get $220 million? And DARN! No pork for Michelle Obama’s hospital? Yeah, I know I feel lots better about government waste.

They just cannot get enough pork!

Even the entreaties of the three senators running for president weren’t enough to persuade their colleagues Thursday to curb their appetite for earmarks — the practice of designating federal dollars for pet projects.

Senators soundly rejected a one-year moratorium backed by the presidential hopefuls — Republican John McCain and Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton — even though it put senators from both parties at odds with their presidential contenders.

The vote — 29 in favor of the proposal, 71 opposed — again demonstrated the enduring popularity of earmarks, even though they have figured prominently in recent congressional scandals, including one that landed former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham of Rancho Santa Fe in prison.

Porkers! 

This besides being an obvious Black seperatist and all-around racist? Wow! He is a well-rounded pain!

Obama’s pastoral issues

On Christmas morning, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. compared presidential candidate Barack Obama’s impoverished childhood to Jesus Christ’s. “Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” he then trumpeted. “Hillary [Clinton] can never know that.”

Mr. Wright wasn’t at a convention or a campaign stop. He was standing at the pulpit before the mostly African-American congregation of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, where Sen. Obama has worshiped for more than 20 years.

Mr. Wright, who will be ending his 36-year tenure as the church’s senior pastor in June, has previously been criticized for comments deriding President George Bush and lauding Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. Now Mr. Wright’s and his successor’s repeated enthusiastic promotion of their famous parishioner may be running afoul of federal tax law, which says churches can endanger their tax-exempt status by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.

Obama should have broken away from this nut long ago.

How far leftwards HAS the Democratic Party moved? Read this piece by George McGovern, and compare it to the capaign rhetoric of Obama and Clinton

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120485275086518279.html

Since leaving office I’ve written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don’t take away cars because we don’t like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don’t operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.