Why Do Conservatives Hate Truth, American Values and Freedom

Romney Gives Bush Neocons Another Chance

Apparently Mitt Romney thinks it's a good idea to make all that's old new again with bringing in a bunch of neoconservative war mongers to advise him on matters of national security. If Mitt Romney thinks running as George W. Bush 2.0 on national security issues with the mood of the country being what it is right now after all the money and lives that have been wasted with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I've got to wonder what bubble this man is living in.

From The Washington Post -- Mitt Romney taps foreign policy, national security advisers -- here's some of the list of those Romney has tapped to join his team:

    Cofer Black, Vice President of Blackbird Technologies; Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (1999-2002); United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism (2002-2004)

    Christopher Burnham, Vice Chairman of Deutsche Bank Asset Management; United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Management (2005-2006); United States Under Secretary of State for Management (2001-2005)

    Michael Chertoff, Chairman of the Chertoff Group; United States Secretary of Homeland Security (2005-2009); Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2003-2005)

    Eliot Cohen, Director of the Strategic Studies Program at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Counselor to the United States Department of State (2007-2009); Defense Policy Advisory Board Member (2001-2009)

    Norm Coleman, Chairman of the Board, American Action Network; Adviser to the Republican Jewish Coalition; United States Senator (R-MN) (2003-2009)

    John Danilovich, Member of the Trilantic European Advisory Council; CEO of Millennium Challenge Corporation (2005-2009); Ambassador to Brazil (2004-2005); Ambassador to Costa Rica (2001-2004)

    Paula Dobriansky, Senior Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs (2001-2009)

    Eric Edelman, Visiting Scholar at School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (2005-2009); Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs (2001-2003)

    Michael Hayden, Principal of the Chertoff Group; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2006-2009); Director of the National Security Agency (1999-2005)

So the same lying zealots who brought us the $3 trillion dollar debacle in Iraq are the people Romney is relying on to guide our foreign policy. Same for Rick Santorum - from an editorial in the WSJ by neocon serial liar Michael Ledeen, Santorum Was Right About Iran—When It Was Unpopular

He foresaw that we would eventually have to confront the Iranian and Syrian regimes, and he was one of the first to point out the intercontinental anti-American alliance involving Iran, Syria, Russia, China, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras and Nicaragua. He calls this a "gathering storm," as members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps enter our hemisphere through the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, accompanied by military equipment and components.

He is right to be concerned. Former supporters of the Hugo Chávez regime in Venezuela, worried at the direction of events in their country, have told American officials that there are Iranian missiles in Venezuela capable of hitting the U.S. More obvious are the Shiite mosques suddenly popping up in Venezuela and its near neighborhood.

There is no credible intelligence that there are Iranian missiles in Venezuela. This is much like the conservative propaganda campaign about Iraq having WMD before the lead up to kicking out weapons inspectors and proceeding with an invasion even though there was never any proof Iraq had a WMD program.

Five Things Rick Santorum Could have Learned in College

Rick Santorum cries Nazi like a frightened little chicken

7 reasons voters are souring on Mitt Romney 

Romney relied on corporate welfare - How Bain Capital leveraged government assistance to boost profits.

Herman Cain Flips Flops and Flips On a Woman's Right to Have Dominion Over Her Own Body

Herman Cain Flips Flops and Flips On a Woman's Right to Have Dominion Over Her Own Body

Here we go again with Herman Cain and his ever-evolving abortion stance. First, in February, 2011, he says as President, he'd sign legislation protecting the right of the unborn.

    I am a firm believer in the dignity of life and support a ban on partial birth abortion. If I were president, I would sign legislation that would protect the sanctity of life.

And on October 7, he says at the Values Voters Summit (video here):

    So I happen to believe that the Founding Fathers put it in that order— life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—for a reason. You can pursue happiness all you want to, as long as you don’t tread on somebody else’s liberty....You can pursue liberty all you want to, as long as you don’t tread on somebody else’s life. And that includes the life of the unborn.”

[More...]

And on October 16, he begins to bob and weave, when he tells David Gregory on Meet the Press:

    MR. GREGORY: What about abortion? You want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Could you support or condone abortion under any exceptions at all?

    MR. CAIN: I believe in life from conception, and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances.

    MR. GREGORY: Exceptions for rape and incest?

    MR. CAIN: Not for rape and incest because...

    MR. GREGORY: What about life of the mother?

    MR. CAIN: Because if you look at, you look at rape and incest, the, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options. If it's the life of the mother, that family's going to have to make that decision.

    MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm. But you can--would you condone abortion if the life of the mother were...

    MR. CAIN: That family is going to have to make that...

    MR. GREGORY: You won't render a judgment on that.

    MR. CAIN: That family is going to have to make that decision.

Then he steps in it, as far as conservatives are concerned. On October 19, he tells Piers Morgan on CNN, it's not the President's job to decide whether abortion is legal.

    No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision....The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make. ..............more at the link.

What a rosy future American women will have with a Cain presidency. Maybe he'll have federal marshals come to your home and have damn sure you carry that pregnancy to term or maybe he won't. It all depends on what mood he's in or what crowd he is trying to please. On the other hand you can bet that Rick Perry will use millions in tax payer dollars for the strong arm of the federal government to have dominion over every woman's uterus. Hey, isn't that what the Founders wanted for a tyrannical government to make personal decisions for women because they're not bright enough to make those decisions for themselves.

Why Does Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) Hate America's Senior Citizens

Why Does Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) Hate America's Senior Citizens

The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee on Tuesday drew fire from Democrats for backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.”

Social Security fits the technical definition of a Ponzi scheme, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told conservative Laura Ingraham on her radio show.

“It’s not a criminal enterprise, but it’s a pay-as-you-go system, where earlier investors — or say, taxpayers — get a positive rate of return, and the most recent investors — or taxpayers — get a negative rate of return,” he said. “That is how those schemes work.”

Perry’s description of the Social Security as a “Ponzi sceheme” has been attacked by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Perry’s leading challenger for the GOP presidential nomination. Romney criticized Perry for scaring seniors and wanting to abolish the program, warning that the Republican nominee needs to work to reform the program.

“They’re both right,” Ryan said of Perry and Romney. “[Social Security] is not working, it is going bankrupt, and current seniors will be jeopardized the most by the status quo.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pushed back against Ryan’s comments.

“Ryan’s belief that Social Security works like a Ponzi scheme proves — once and for all — that House Republicans have really declared a war on seniors,” DCCC spokesman Jesse Ferguson said in a statement. “A Ponzi scheme is Bernie Madoff ripping off Americans — not Social Security benefits that seniors earned and depend on during retirement.”

Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and all the millionaire pundits at Fox News have a plan for the 20 million Americas who Social Security keeps out of poverty - they can sleep in alleys and under bridges where they can enjoy their daily can of dog food. Social Security is NOT a Ponzi Scheme, Dammit! (copiously sourced)

Many of my most reasonable friends buy into the myth that Social Security is in deep trouble. It’s so accepted and commonly heard amongst major media talking heads, not to mention Republican politicians. In the debate held 9/7/11 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Rick Perry notoriously labeled Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and “montrous lie.”

    What are the facts about Social Security’s solvency?

    Well, Social Security continues to be in better shape than everything else in government. It has run a surplus not a deficit for the majority of its years in existence.

    Reasonable entities (meaning parties like the Congressional Budget Office not right-wing hysterics) assure us that Social Security will continue to be able to operate paying full benefits for the next 25 years.

 Lawrence Mishel. Economic Policy Institute.

 Top 5 Social Security Myths. MoveOn.org.


  Straight Facts on Social Security [pdf]. Economic Opportunity Institute.

Why do these know-nothing American hating conservative fanatics want America to believe Social Security is a scheme, so they can funnel those funds to their fiends on Wall St. It was conservatives and their Wall St pals who drove the US economy off the cliff. How can America trust them with the financial security of retirees. It is time for America to wake up and stop believing that conservatives are patriots who care about America.

Right-Wing Blogs Condemn White House For Tracking Smears, Then Launch New Michelle Obama Smear

Right-Wing Blogs Condemn White House For Tracking Smears, Then Launch New Michelle Obama Smear

It’s not often that right-wing bloggers actually disprove their own point so publicly and spectacularly in less than 24 hours. But they managed to do exactly that by whining about an Obama re-election initiative to ferret out smear campaigns while they launched a new smear campaign against Michelle Obama.

And no, there’s no indication Obama critics appreciated the deep irony involved.

This week we saw the collective freakout over the new AttackWatch website. Designed to combat smears and lies about the Obama administration, the launch, perhaps not surprisingly, produced widespread condemnation from the people who traffic in smears and lies about the Obama administration.

The fact-checking site is “offensive” and “sinister,” and just like "Big Brother" and “Nazi Germany,” conservatives cried.

But is AttackWatch necessary? The right-wing blogosphere quickly answered that question by (surprise!) launching a nasty smear campaign in which bloggers condemned the First Lady based on what they think she said (yes, lip-reading was the basis for the attack), while recently attending a solemn Ground Zero memorial on Sept. 11.

The attack is almost beyond belief in terms of just how debasing and dishonest it is. But that, unfortunately, is the state of today’s right-wing media, where hating the Obama’s has become an all-consuming, albeit deeply dishonorable, profession.

Yet these are the same people stomping their feet because Obama’s re-election team has the gall to pushback on smear campaigns? If anything, bloggers this week confirmed just how important a site like AttackWatch will be.

Its the new version of the conservative first Amendment - they get to libel and slander the people they hate all day and their opponents are supposed to shut up. That is exactly what the Nazi party did to their oppoenets when they came to power in Wiemar Germany.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) Dreams of Being Communist Leader Stalin With One Man Holding American Justice Hostage

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) Dreams of Being Communist Leader Stalin With One Man Holding American Justice Hostage

Earlier this year, President Obama nominated Arvo Mikkanen, who would become the only sitting Native American federal judge in the country if he is confirmed, to a federal court in Oklahoma. Almost immediately, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) placed Mikkanen on double-secret probation — vowing to block Mikkanen’s nomination, but refusing to tell anyone why.

Just six months later, Coburn is back to his same obstructionist tricks:

    Sen. Tom Coburn shot down the impending nomination of the dean of the University of Tulsa law school for the vacant seat on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to Oklahoma attorneys who said Coburn was concerned about Janet Levit’s background in international law. [...]

    Levit is a Yale Law School graduate with a distinguished resume that includes serving as a clerk for the former chief judge of the 10th circuit court and arguing cases before the court. She has been dean of the University of Tulsa College of Law since 2008.

    Levit’s academic specialty is international law, and she is a member of the American Society of International Law.

Coburn is one of the leading proponents of a paranoid fantasy that claims that activist judges are on the cusp of replacing American law with some kind of international legal new world order, but his decision to block Levit is bizarre even by Coburn’s standards. Apparently, merely knowing something about international law disqualifies you from service on the federal bench.

Coburn’s veto over judicial nominees within his state stems from a process known as “blue slipping” that effectively enables home-state senators to block nominees within their state that they disapprove of — although this rule somehow doesn’t apply when there is a conservative president. And it is unlikely that any nominee will survive Coburn’s effective veto given his deeply radical views of the Constitution. Coburn believes that Medicare, Medicaid, and education programs such as Pell Grants, federal student loans and Title I are all unconstitutional.

In other words, this is just one more example of how the Senate’s broken rules are failing the country. It makes no sense whatsoever to give a single senator with radical and idiosyncratic views the ability to prevent any new judges from being confirmed within his state.

Whether it is communism or fascism, authoritarianism has come to America dressed up as a Republican. Only history's worse despots think that one man can bring the entire judicial system to a near stand-still. Congratulations to Coburn and his fellow wacko conservatives for using the rules of democracy to push democracy another step closer to destruction.

The Hate America First Crowd At Fox News Misleads Public About Jobs Bill

The Hate America First Crowd At Fox News Misleads Public About Jobs Bill

Conservative media figures are citing the discredited myth that the stimulus failed to argue that President Obama's jobs plan also will not help the economy. In fact, economic analysts have repeatedly said that the 2009 recovery act boosted the economy and increased employment, and economists estimate that Obama's jobs plan is likely to add millions of jobs.

Right-Wing Media: Obama's Jobs Plan Won't Create Jobs -- Just Like The Stimulus

Fox's MacCallum: "$447 Billion In New Money To Stimulate The Economy On Top Of 800 Billion In The Original Stimulus Plan That Didn't Work." Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum discussed Obama's jobs plan with Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ). MacCallum said that "one of the big questions that I think a lot of people were left with at the end of the speech last night was: $447 billion in new money to stimulate the economy on top of 800 billion in the original stimulus plan that didn't work, as evidenced by the employment numbers and every other indication of the economy that we've seen." She continued:

    MacCALLUM: So why would this $447 billion -- where are we going to get the money, and why should everyone be convinced that this time it will work? [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 9/9/11]

But Economists Say Obama's Jobs Plan Would Create Millions Of Jobs

Zandi: American Jobs Act Would Add Nearly 2 Million Jobs. UPI reported:

    President Barack Obama's $447 billion job-creation plan would likely add 1.9 million payroll jobs and grow the U.S. economy 2 percent, a leading economist said.

    The plan, which Obama outlined before a joint session of Congress Thursday, would likely cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point, Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi said as Obama prepared to tout the plan at Virginia's University of Richmond. [United Press International, 9/9/11]

Macroeconomic Advisers: American Jobs Act Would Be "A Significant Boost To GDP And Employment." From the blog of Macroeconomic Advisers LLC:

    We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

        The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers' after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:

        Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.

        Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline.

        The program works directly to raise employment through tax incentives and support to state & local governments for increasing hiring; it works indirectly through the positive boost to aggregate demand (and hence hiring) stimulated by the direct spending and the increase in household income resulting from lower employee payroll taxes and increased employment. [Macroeconomic Advisers LLC, 9/8/11]

EPI: American Jobs Act Would "Increase Employment By About 4.3 Million Jobs." Economic Policy Institute research and policy director John Irons provided a "preliminary breakdown of the package and a first pass look at the job impact" of Obama's jobs plan:

    Overall the package would increase employment by about 4.3 million jobs over the next couple of years. The new initiatives would boost employment by about 2.6 million jobs, while the continuation of the two temporary provisions (EUI and the payroll tax holiday) would prevent a backslide of over 1.6 million jobs.

Conservatives and their America hating friends in the conservative media want unemployment to continue to be high because as Michele Bachmann confessed high unemployment will help get crazy right-wing conservative such as her and Rick perry elected. The Republican party is a movement of rabid foaming at the mouth nationalists, not patriots. Pay attention to what they do. They always put their party first and America last.

America Hating Gov. Rick Perry Again Claims Social Security is Unconstitutional

America Hating Gov. Rick Perry Again Claims Social Security is Unconstitutional

During a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa today, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) reaffirmed all the views expressed in his book Fed Up!, including that Social Security is unconstitutional, despite previous attempts by his campaign staff to walk back the candidate’s words.

In Perry’s book, released just nine months ago, he writes on page 48 that Social Security is “by far the best example” of a program “violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles.” On page 50, he goes on to say that we have Social Security “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.”

Last week, Communications Director Ray Sullivan tried to limit the damage from Perry’s book by saying that its contents were, as the Wall Street Journal writes, “not meant to reflect the governor’s current views on how to fix” Social Security.

ThinkProgress asked Perry today whether, in light of his campaign’s statements, states rights supporters should be worried that his views on Social Security have shifted now that he’s running for president. Perry dismissed his Communications Director’s comments, declaring “I haven’t backed off anything in my book. Read the book again, get it right.”

KEYES: But should states-rights supporters be worried that, as governor you said that Social Security is not something that falls in the purview of the federal government, but in your campaign, have backed off that?

PERRY: I haven’t backed off anything in my book. Read the book again, get it right. Next question.

Social Security is an income insurance program started by one of America's greatest presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt. It currently keeps 20 million Americans out of poverty. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has made three major decisions regarding the constitutionality of Social Security. They have all confirmed Social Security is constitutional and is well within the right of the people and their representatives in Congress to make laws that provide for the common good of the people.

The Myth That The Obama Administration Are Big Spenders


Conservative Republican Media Distort Study To Blame Obama For Poverty

Why Does Gov Rick Perry Hate America and Capitalism

Why Does Gov Rick Perry Hate America and Capitalism

On Sunday afternoon—just 24 hours after Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced his presidential candidacy—an email arrived in my inbox titled, “14 Reasons Why Rick Perry Would Be a Really, Really Bad President.” The article contained in the email took such a harsh tone toward Perry, I assumed, for a brief moment, that a liberal interest group was quickly jumping on the newest entrant in the Republican presidential field. In turns out, however, that the piece was the product of a right-wing website called The American Dream. The author of the article argued that Perry, the supposed savior of conservatives nationwide, is actually a RINO—a Republican in Name Only.

For Texans, this line of argument is nothing new. Indeed, for anyone who’s closely followed Perry’s tenure in Texas—as I have, covering the governor for The Texas Observer since 2003—it’s no secret that some of the state’s conservatives and libertarians dispute his conservative credentials. It’s true that Perry has trafficked heavily in anti-Washington rhetoric, especially in the run-up to his candidacy to become president. But the closer you look at Perry’s record in Texas, the harder it is to discern any coherent ideology at all. When GOP primary voters in other parts of the country examine his signature legislative accomplishments and policy stances, some won’t like what they find.

The first Perry proposal to rile some Texas right-wing activists was the Trans-Texas Corridor—an ambitious plan to cover the state in a series of toll roads. Perry first pitched the idea during his 2002 campaign for governor. The plan would have used government’s eminent domain authority to seize rural farmland not just for multi-lane tolled highways, but also for rail and utility lines. Perry’s office and the Texas Department of Transportation gained legislative approval for the plan in 2003. The state handed the contract for the road planning and building to a Spanish-based company named Cintra.

The backlash from rural Republicans was intense. It was a text-book example of a policy that classic small-government conservatives would hate: Seizing farmland with eminent domain, then handing public money to a foreign company that would built roads Texans would have pay tolls to drive on. Anti-Trans Texas Corridor buttons soon became one of the most popular items among delegates at Republican State Party Conventions in 2004, 2006 and 2008.

Perry’s plan for a comprehensive network of toll-roads would eventually die slowly over the next four legislative sessions, meeting resistance from conservative Republicans. Toll roads are still being built in Texas, but the corridor plan is remembered as a colossal failure for the governor.

Perry caused conservative revulsion again in 2007 when he proposed that all young girls in Texas receive the HPV vaccine. The drug company Merck had just put the drug on the market, and the governor’s office made a heart-wrenching case for why all Texans should have access to it. His office brought to the Legislature a young woman with terminal cervical cancer, caused by HPV, to meet with the press and argue for mandatory vaccinations.

Some Texas Democrats agreed with Perry’s position. But the governor’s critics also pointed out that Perry’s former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, was serving as a lobbyist for Merck, which stood to make millions from the vaccine requirement. In the end, conservative Republicans in the Legislature bucked at the thought of requiring young girls to receive an STD vaccine, and Perry's effort died in the Legislature.

Then there’s the one major proposal that Perry did, in fact, pass into law—the state’s business tax. This tax increase on business was crafted in 2006 as part of a school-finance reform. The idea was to cut local property taxes and replace the lost revenue with a new business margins tax. This 2006 tax “swap” was the one instance during Perry’s decade as governor when he proposed a wide-ranging plan and successfully pushed it through the Legislature mostly unchanged. It will likely be remembered as his signature legislative accomplishment.

The problem is, it’s been a disaster. Small businesses hate it because they’re forced to pay regardless of whether they’re turning a profit: it seemed to be the very definition of a “job-killing” tax. Some conservatives simply hate it on principle. A few even argued that Perry’s business tax is unconstitutional—amounting to a tax on income, which is forbidden by the Texas Constitution.

But worst of all, the tax doesn’t even generate enough revenue. The tax “swap” has cost the state $5 billion a year for five years running. The Texas budget now faces an ongoing structural deficit because of the underperforming business tax. And with a tax increase on small business and a structural budget deficit to boot, it’s clear that Perry hasn’t taken conservative economists like Milton Friedman as his inspiration.

Another example of his conservative heresy is the Texas Enterprise Fund, which Perry seem to be especially proud of. The purpose of the Fund is to dole out public money to lure companies to Texas. It has created tens of thousands of jobs in the state, but critics have not incorrectly, labeled it “corporate welfare,” a slush fund for well-connected businesses. The Observer investigated the fund in 2010 and found that several companies with political ties to Perry had received state grants.

All of this probably makes little difference to the anti-American conservatives who see Perry as a wing-nut god of sorts. he speaks their special coded language, he uses all the buzz words to inflate his and their fake patriotism to make it look real. He is dumb as a rock, just the way conservatives like their leaders. Modern conservatism holds knowledge and enlightened thought in contempt and so does Perry. So Perry can climb trees and yell like a baboon with rabies and the fake patriot conservatives will smile and pull that lever knowing that one of their own will lead the country into the dysfunctional utopia they dream of.

Historically a Key Component of Fascism is Crony Corporatism. Wanker Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Defends Crony Corporate Welfare

Historically a Key Component of Fascism is Crony Corporatism. Anti-American Wanker Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Defends Crony Corporate Welfare

Appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued that budget talks should not include the reduction of oil and gas subsidies. Kyl, who abandoned budget negotiations with the White House this week, claimed that eliminating $2 billion in annual subsidies for the richest oil companies — instead of slashing programs that feed the poor and protect the middle class — would “hurt the American consumer”:

First of all, if you want gas prices to rise and pay more than $4 at the pump, go ahead and do this. That is not what we should be about right now. That kind of tax increase is going to flow right to the consumer. Everybody knows that. Secondly, you are picking out one industry in the United States, an industry that employs almost 10 million people, represents 7.5% of the Gross Domestic Product. You’re saying to them you are not going to get the same tax treatment that all other manufacturing corporations get in the United States. So we’re going to punish you, because you make a lot of money. It’s also true with those big profits, they have enormous costs of investment. Of course, you covered the issue of how much it costs to put one of those platforms out in the middle of Gulf of Mexico. Billions of dollars. Big money all the way around. You’ll hurt the American consumer if you impose more taxes on them.


Kyl is not telling the truth about oil and gas subsidies:

Eliminating Oil Subsidies Won’t Raise Gas Prices. Eliminating Big Oil’s subsidies would have very little effect on gas prices. The subsidies have little to no influence on the investment decisions oil companies make, especially with the price of oil around $100 a barrel. Instead, the tax breaks simply pad oil profits, and are funneled into “obscene” executive pay schemes and shareholder payoffs. Even the American Petroleum Institute, which opposes cutting the subsidies, has admitted that eliminating subsidies wouldn’t affect gas prices.

The Oil And Gas Industry Employs About 700,000 Americans, Not “Almost 10 Million”. A report prepared for the American Petroleum Institute in 2009 estimated the the oil and gas industry involves only 2.1 million direct jobs with 7.1 million indirect and induced jobs. But even the 2.1 million jobs figure is grossly inflated. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, oil and gas drilling — the industries directly affected by most of these subsidies — only employed 63,012 jobs in September 2009, the most recent reporting period. U.S. Department of Labor 2007 statistics indicate the drilling and production of oil and natural gas, plus support activities directly account for 425,025 jobs. If sectors such as oil refineries and natural gas distribution are included, even though they are unaffected by drilling subsidies, the total increases to 743,825 jobs. According to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data from 2009, the drilling and production of oil and natural gas directly generates 799,100 jobs.

Taxes aren’t dollars that disappear, and the payment of taxes isn’t a punishment for successful businesses, like the oil industry that gets over $7 billion in subsidies a year, far more than the Obama administration has proposed cutting. Taxes paid go back into the American economy, supporting the long-term investments that make the United States the richest nation on earth.

For example, taxes support public universities like Arizona State, where Kyl earned his bachelor’s and law degree. Taxes pay for the electoral system that Kyl joined as a member of Congress in 1986, where he has been taxpayer-funded ever since. Then again, Kyl has also directly received $333,332 from the oil and gas industry in political contributions over his career. Maybe he is just concerned about protecting his own personal oil and gas subsidies, which he receives on top of his taxpayer salary.

Kyl is the kind of corrupt anti-American assclown that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton warned us about. Kyl is simply a criminal who does not care how much he weakens America or the economy as long as he and his fellow criminals have fat bank accounts.