Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Congressional Budget Office’

Senate filibusters taking money from oil companies and using it to build more exploding cars

March 30, 2012 1 comment

Well, the temperature has dropped, and with it, my mood.

Just kidding.  It’s Friday, so the work week can suck it.  Plus, how could I possibly complain after three days of Obamacare oral arguments at the Supreme Court?  Just listening to the confused responses of those who previously told me the case was a slam dunk was enough to get me through the week.  Don’t get too excited though; just because the Justices’ questions exposed the absurdity of the mandate doesn’t mean they’ll vote that way.  After all, the Court found a constitutional right to abortion somewhere.  But I’m not here to talk about that.

I’m here to talk about the the Senate bill to end oil subsidies.  It failed due to the filibuster rule, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass something.  Barry, of course, was not pleased:

‘They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past. Or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren’t needed to boost oil production so that we can invest in the future,’ Obama said. ‘It’s that simple.’

He continued with the rhetoric:

‘It’s like hitting the American people twice,’ Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Thursday morning. ‘You’re already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress thinks it’s a good idea to send billions more of your tax dollars to the oil industry?’

Two things about this.  First, the American people aren’t being hit twice, because we’re not talking about actual “subsidies.”  In other words, the government isn’t taking my tax dollars and sending them to Chevron.  Instead, our tax code gives oil companies tax breaks, which simply allows them to keep more of their own money.  Thus, B.O.’s statement is blatantly untrue.

With that being said, why are we giving tax breaks to oil companies?  I agree with the president in this respect.  In fact, why are we giving them to any industry?  Why does the government have pet projects?  Why don’t we just lower taxes overall and get rid of subsidies/tax break for every industry?  This leads me to point number two.  What does Barry want to do with the extra money the government gets if the bill is passed?  Pay down the debt?  Send me a check?  Wallpaper the White House?  No.  Of course not.  He would use it to “invest in the future.”

The bill would have killed several tax breaks taken by the five largest oil companies and use some of the proceeds to extend expiring energy tax provisions, such as tax breaks for renewable energy, electric cars and energy efficient homes.

That’s right.  He’d turn them into tax breaks for other industries.  And not just any other industries, but industries that don’t work and that nobody wants.  And as an aside, renewables are already the Belles of the Ball in terms of tax breaks.  Need proof?  Here’s some info from the Congressional Budget Office; complete with a picture which everybody likes.

So, what have we learned?  We have further confirmation that Obama’s a liar (which, to be fair, every politician is).  We’ve also learned that removing tax breaks is hard.  The Republicans didn’t just reject the bill because of the give-away to renewables, or because they’re in the pocket of big oil (which everyone in Congress is).  We’re already paying through the nose for gasoline, and increasing the costs on oil companies certainly won’t help prices go down.

Well, that’s it.  I’m going to listen to some more audio from the Obamacare hearings, and dream of days where the Supreme Court actually enforces the Constitution.

You could buy Italy for the price of Obamacare.

March 16, 2012 Leave a comment
Mitt Romney - The 1 Percent

Nope, he's not a college professor. Sorry.

Primary season has officially arrived in Illinois.  Even though early voting has been going on for a while now, and the actual voting is almost upon us (the 20th), I really didn’t feel the upcoming election until last night, when, as I was trying to find my remote control, I began being fed propaganda by Mitt Romney.  Many people hate these commercials.  Not me.  At least I’m not being forced to watch another advertisement about stuff I’ll never use; like tampons.  I’m not a woman, but I did marry one (SCORE), and I’ve never seen her do gymnastics during that time of the month.  Come to think of it, I’ve never seen her do gymnastics at any time of the month.

The point is, I like political commercials.  It was nice to see Mittens all up in Santorum’s grill during his thirty-second spots.  I didn’t see any for Santorum.  Do these commercials really impact how people vote?  It seems unlikely.  For example, I was on the fence for a while, between Mittens and Santorum.  But then Santorum said he’d heavily regulate internet pornography, which caused me to immediately fall/jump off the fence onto Romney’s well-manicured lawn. Santorum’s porn position was not mentioned in Romney’s commercial.

Truth is, I’m voting for Romney because he can win…I’m not convinced Santorum can.  And winning matters.  I like being part of a winning team, even if I sat on the end of the bench.  Winning increases self-esteem, and chicks don’t dig losers.  Also, Obama’s a friggin’ train wreck, and not the kind you can’t look away from.  Problem is, the wreck is everywhere.

Take his monumental health care plan, for example.  Obamacare is right up there with shooting an unarmed man in the face in terms of Barry’s Greatest Hits.  Of course, all of us with an ounce of common sense (and by “common sense,” I mean the realization that stuff costs money), knew that the healthcare bill would cost way more than the administration was claiming.  Why?  Because you can’t subsidize the health care of millions without it costing lots of money.

Well, the CBO just updated its cost estimates for the kindler, gentler version of single-payer healthcare, and those estimates have provided strong support for Nancy Pelosi’s immortal words: “We need to pass it to know what’s in it.”  What’s in it happens to be slightly more than the gross domestic product of Italy, circa 2010:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Want more?

President Obama’s proposed budget would add $6.4 trillion to the nation’s deficits over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

And this is before the thing even gets implemented (coming in 2014).  I can hear the liberals now…actually I can’t.  My guess is we won’t hear anything from the left on this.  All we heard from the left during the debate about Obamacare was that it would be deficit neutral.  That they’d find the savings by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in Medicare.  That they’d lower health care costs.  Well, those things all turned out to be inaccurate.  So, either the administration was criminally negligent in the quality of accountants it hired, or it simply lied.  I’ll let you decide which.

All of this leads me back to the beginning.  I’m voting for Romney because he can win (and he hasn’t mentioned regulating porn).  In fact, I think he will win.  Don’t look at national polls; look at local polls in the swing states.  And don’t look at them now, because Obama is currently running against himself; even he can’t lose that race.  Once Romney gets the nomination though, he’ll (hopefully) start pointing out Obama’s many large and distinguished warts.  Does Romney have some of his own?  Sure (see: Romneycare).  But at the end of the day, we’ll have a very successful businessman up against a college professor who has presided over the worst economic recovery since our last little-dictator shoved the New Deal disaster down America’s collective throat.

Social Security. Why?

January 27, 2011 1 comment

I'll be dead before people realize this was a bad idea.

I’ve always wondered what the American people were thinking in 1935, when they allowed FDR and Congress to pass the Social Security Act.  Well, strike that, they probably weren’t thinking about it at all because of the Great Depression and trying to eat and stuff (example of never letting a good crisis go to waste? hmmm…).  Seriously, is there anything more un-American than the federal government passing a law that forces you to pay a certain amount in taxes so that the government can hold the money until you retire?  And the rationale behind it all is that you’re too stupid to save for retirement yourself?  We’re not talking about the “common good” here.  We’re talking about a government-mandated “stupid tax,” and we’ve allowed it to not only exist, but expand ever since.  I find it shocking. 

Well, thanks to the inevitabilities of our duly-elected representatives raiding any pot of money in existence, maybe Social Security will be going away for good.  I previously posted about the President’s Debt Commission this past summer.  I’m not going to link it because, well, I’m too lazy to look for it.  But the gist of their findings were we’ll never get out of debt until we do something about the three biggest black holes of tax revenue: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  This finding elicited much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left, because they luv their entitlement programs.  The most contentious issue was Social Security though.  Why?  Because, as libs like to say, SS doesn’t have any impact on our budget.  It’s funded entirely by the FICA tax, and it shouldn’t be receiving any money from other tax revenue.  Thus, it shouldn’t contribute to the deficit.  Well, they’re right in that it shouldn’t use other federal tax revenue…just like my son shouldn’t place himself within biting distance of his two year old sister over and over again.  The point is: they do.  And with respect to SS, there’s no more blood coming from that stone.

New congressional projections show Social Security running deficits every year until its trust funds are eventually drained in about 2037.

This year alone, Social Security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. That figure swells to $130 billion when a new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included, though Congress has promised to repay any lost revenue from the tax cut. 

Oh no!  The oldies are going to starve!  Just kidding.  The deficit will be made up with money from the general budget.  The problem, though, is that we can’t afford to pay for it out of the general budget.  So, we’ll borrow it from the Chinese.  Problem?  Not for me.  I enjoy kung pao chicken, so I welcome our new overlords. 

Is all lost then?  Probably.  But my hero, Rep. Paul Ryan, has a plan.  He would like people to have the option of opting out of SS, and invest the money themselves.  Sounds good to me.  I’m more comfortable using my money to “make it rain” in a crack house than letting the government “lock it away” for the future. 

Will Rep. Ryan’s plan ever be codified into law?  Probably not.  Why?  Because all politicians love slush funds.  But remember, it’s projected to run out completely in 2037, so those of you that are my age…I would recommend starting to save for retirement. 

%d bloggers like this: