Apr 27 2006
Coulter: High gas prices have been a Democratic policy for years
Ann Coulter points out the inherent hypocrisy in the Democrat's wailing and gnashing of teeth over high gas prices.
By: Ann Coulter
I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.
Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.
For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.
The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station."
Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package." The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.
And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay.
Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production. This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.
Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years. ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter — another testimonial to the American public educational system.
The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.
Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."
Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.
Just two months ago, we were being confidently told — on the basis of a New York Times/CBS News poll, so it must be true — that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.
How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?
It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!
The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!
When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.
4 Responses to “Coulter: High gas prices have been a Democratic policy for years”
Leave a Reply
You can track future comments on this post via this RSS feed. You can trackback this post by pinging this URL.
Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Karl, why don’t you just come clean and admit that you love Coulter, Malkin and other moderates on the right?
Coulter is a demagogue who is trying to score points against Democrats for wise but very unpopular policy proposals that were originally made by Republicans, including Cheney and the Harvard economist who headed Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. See these threads at RedState:
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/2/20/153818/305/5#5
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/2/20/153818/305/13#13
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/1/17/222745/420/2#2
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2005/11/16/83949/551/83#83
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/1/11/1697/51252/6#6.
Bush and the Republicans now would rather have us go to war needlessly than to simply buy gas more cheaply on the open international market. This has helped secure votes from the defense contractors and oil firms, all of which have made out like bandits as the international price of oil has more than doubled from the supply disruptions and uncertainty from the Iraq invasion and Iran saber-rattling. As long as we’ve got a military in the ME, we should be paying for the expense in our imported oil prices (instead of borrowing to pay for the war, as we’re doing now).
The desire for "cheap" energy in the US is fuelling all kinds of mischief and confusion. Do you think the Republicans are helping by proposing a $100 gas check (to be paid from money borrowed and repaid by our children)? Far cheaper to bring our troops home and stop building permanent bases. One of the reasons the Administration is itching for war with Iran to get our hands on Khuzestan, the Arab Shiite province neighboring Iraq that has 90% if Iran’s oil.
Open your eyes.
Karl, why don’t you just come clean and admit that you love Coulter, Malkin and other moderates on the right?
Hold it right there. You want me to take you seriously and then you call Coulter a Moderate? She is hardly moderate. The reason i dont link to her oftenis that she engages in so much vitriol and invective, and makes so many ouotrageous statements that it is distracting to her message. She is a conservative who does not like liberals, and she is utterly unapologetic. I at least admire her honesty.
But I can’t always agree with her tactic.
Malkin is more moderate, but still she is likewise unapologeticly conservative. I appreciate the work she does a lot, because she is not afraid to dig in where needed and to criticize other conservatives when warranted.
Coulter is a demagogue who is trying to score points against Democrats for wise but very unpopular policy proposals that were originally made by Republicans, including Cheney and the Harvard economist who headed Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. See these threads at RedState:
I dont have time now to look, but I will. But regardless you will not get me to disdagree she wants to score against the democrats. So what? They are all trying to score against Bush. Thats how the game is played in DC.
Bush and the Republicans now would rather have us go to war needlessly than to simply buy gas more cheaply on the open international market. This has helped secure votes from the defense contractors and oil firms, all of which have made out like bandits as the international price of oil has more than doubled from the supply disruptions and uncertainty from the Iraq invasion and Iran saber-rattling. As long as we’ve got a military in the ME, we should be paying for the expense in our imported oil prices (instead of borrowing to pay for the war, as we’re doing now).
Oh lord, I could eat up several blogs refuting and arguing that, but in this short space, let’s just say i disagree with much of it.
The desire for "cheap" energy in the US is fuelling all kinds of mischief and confusion. Do you think the Republicans are helping by proposing a $100 gas check (to be paid from money borrowed and repaid by our children)?
Oh I oppose the rebates as they are essentially a band aid being used to stauch a torn artery. It looks cute but does nothing to fix the problem.
The truth is that the feds love the high prices as the oil profits means more tax revenue. Exxon makes billions in profits, but the government made billions off those profits. The government, all of it, not jsut Bush has as more to gain by keeping prices high.
The rebates are a diversion to get ANWAR drilling, make the democrats look bad, and appease the hungry mob. And they are too little too late.
Far cheaper to bring our troops home and stop building permanent bases. One of the reasons the Administration is itching for war with Iran to get our hands on Khuzestan, the Arab Shiite province neighboring Iraq that has 90% if Iran’s oil.
I kept hearing how we went to war with Iraq for cheaper oil. That obviously was a false accusation. In some ways I wish we had.
But since we didnt do it then, why should I believe the same about Iran now? Sorry, try a new one, and pull the other leg.
Fool me once, shame on you….fool me twice, shame on me.
Open your eyes.
Oh they are wide open. Amazing what I see.
Karl:
Sorry I threw you off with my unintended use of "moderate" for Malkin and Coulter - as they are both cheerleaders on the far right, "demagogue" would be a better word choice. I’m not sure what you think is honest about Coulter.
It’s clear that the Administration/Republicans want to keep voters relatively content at home, while using the military to obtain and protect access to oil in the ME. That was a key attraction of our invasion of Iraq and why we’re building permanent bases there, and one of the reasons for our saber-rattling and stirring up rebellion there. If we ever attack, look to see Khusetan spilt off as I mentioned - it would give us control over Iran’s oil, block China, and cut off funds for the Persians.
That Iraq is a mess is simply proof that the Administration was over-optimistic about the effectiveness of the military (as Fukuyama, Buckley and Sullivan have noted). However, I don’t think it can be denied that the Administration looks at military incursions for their political benefits, including a potential attack on Iran - fear, and then support for the CIC - sells. See here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1186555,00.html. The mistake in Iraq has been extrremely costly and is one factor in disrupting international oil markets and the price of gas at home. The chickens are coming home to roost. And Coulter’s job is to distract people’s attention from this, and she does so by accusing the Dems of wanting a higher gas tax, which would actually be a more effective policy than just sending our troops everywhere. Even though we could use the revenues, the Republicans view a gas tax as political poison, which shows the courage of Dems in proposing one. Republicans prefer to coddle big industries and to keep voters docile, which is why they propose a rebate that we will fund to ourselves. This coddling actually makes things worse - just look at the wreck of the US auto industry, after the collpase of sales of SUV.
Sorry I threw you off with my unintended use of "moderate" for Malkin and Coulter - as they are both cheerleaders on the far right, "demagogue" would be a better word choice.
They are conservative pundits. I find that a bit more accurate then cheerleaders, which is fairly sexist.
I’m not sure what you think is honest about Coulter.
Oh she is easily one of the most honest people. She is saying what she feels. Is she sometimes disengenuous? Probably.
But my real point with her stands. She has brilliant ideas, and for whatever reasons she masks and clouds them behind her sarcasm and vitriol. It’s a shame in some ways.
It’s clear that the Administration/Republicans want to keep voters relatively content at home, while using the military to obtain and protect access to oil in the ME.
I dont know why, we only get about 28% of our imported oil there. But regardless, they said that was why we went to Iraq. It never happened, so again, barring some meaningful evidence, its just more rhetoric.
That was a key attraction of our invasion of Iraq and why we’re building permanent bases there, and one of the reasons for our saber-rattling and stirring up rebellion there. If we ever attack, look to see Khusetan spilt off as I mentioned - it would give us control over Iran’s oil, block China, and cut off funds for the Persians.
I think it is fairly obvious what the benfits for having a military presence in the middle east are, beyond oil.
That Iraq is a mess is simply proof that the Administration was over-optimistic about the effectiveness of the military (as Fukuyama, Buckley and Sullivan have noted).
Well, I think too many people were expecting this to be a slam dunk like the gulf war was.
War is never that easy. Overall I think it has had its share of goofs, but I also think the overal prospect has been better then is reported.
However, I don’t think it can be denied that the Administration looks at military incursions for their political benefits, including a potential attack on Iran - fear, and then support for the CIC - sells. See here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1186555,00.html.
The article you point to is fairly opinionated and prejudicial so its hard to read any real truth there.
The mistake in Iraq has been extrremely costly and is one factor in disrupting international oil markets and the price of gas at home. The chickens are coming home to roost.
That is hardly conclusive. The truth is that there are a lot of factors besides Iraq that are contributing. If Iraq was the issue, we’d have had 75 dollar a barrel oil 3 years ago.
And Coulter’s job is to distract people’s attention from this, and she does so by accusing the Dems of wanting a higher gas tax,
(which they do)
which would actually be a more effective policy than just sending our troops everywhere.
Which has nothing directly to do with gas prices.
Even though we could use the revenues, the Republicans view a gas tax as political poison, which shows the courage of Dems in proposing one.
As A consumer who has to pay it, I oppose it to. Taxes like this become revenue cash chows, and frankly they are misused.
Republicans prefer to coddle big industries and to keep voters docile, which is why they propose a rebate that we will fund to ourselves. This coddling actually makes things worse - just look at the wreck of the US auto industry, after the collpase of sales of SUV.
Oh brother. Thanks for clearly stating your partisan roots.
I am so sick of the big corporation accusations about the repubs.
You mean the SUV’s that still sell?
Look, i oppose the rebates because they are a bandaid, not a cure.
If they wanted to cure the oil problem, we have plenty of oil here at home, in Maine where Canada is slant drilling our oil away, In Floirida where Castro is about to start drilling 45 miles off our coast and, in ANWAR where we have vast reserves……but the democrats oppose that, so that just tells me they are not serious about fixing our dependence on foreign oil, they just want to play games.