Hayek's Tool Bag of the Week: Al Gore

It is with great pleasure to announce that Al Gore, 45th Vice President of the United States, as the winner of my Tool Bag of the Week award.

Mr. Gore paid Washington and Congress a visit this week in order to testify before the House Energy and Commerce committee concerning the "Cap and Trade", also known as The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The former Vice President completely supports this bill and called it "one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress...I believe this legislation has the moral significance equivalent to that of the civil rights legislation of the 1960's and the Marshall Plan of the late 1940's"[1]. Here are some other highlights from this testimony. Here's the transcript.

• "We cannot afford to wait any longer for this transition. Each day that we continue with the status quo sees more of our fellow Americans struggling to provide for their families."

• "Passage of this legislation will restore America's leadership of the world and begin, at long last, to solve the climate crisis. It is truly a moral imperative."

• "The United States is the world's leader. We are the only nation in the world that can. Once we find the moral courage to take on this issue, the rest of the world will come along. Now is the time to act before the world gathers in Copenhagen this December to solve the crisis. Not next year, this year."

I must admit that I personally believe that Mr. Gore is one of the smartest people on this planet and I truly mean that. The man is making a wonderful living ringing the bell of alarm concerning "Climate Change". My problem with Al is that he's going about this situation in a classic Tool bag kind of way. Let me example further.

First, the man paints those that disagree with him as "deniers". Of course the word deniers conjures up thoughts about Holocaust deniers. He also managed to tie the Civil Rights Legislation with this bill. I wonder why. Mr. Gore says that there is no debate or discussion concerning the causes of "Climate Change" when he proclaimed that "the debate is over". It's a perfect storm really. If you are on the other side you are equal to an anti-semitic, racist, who believes that the earth is flat, and that you probably molest your children (Ok, that last part wasn't Al Gore but just another lover of the planet).

Second, Mr. Gore is constantly saying that oil companies are funding researchers, researchers that dare to question the other side in any form, in order to confuse the public about man induced climate change (or warming, or what it's called this week). However, "man is killing the planet" side of the argument are funded by environmental lobbyists or are representing Clean/Green energy companies that stand to make a pretty penny if legislation like this pass.

How is that different from the oil companies?

I'm sorry, I lost my head there for a second. Mr Gore and his environmental comrades are just heroic figures trying to save lives. They just happen to be making a lot of money in the process. Oil companies are raping the earth and should be shot.

I hear you, Big Al. I feel like I am having a Bill Murray moment right now.

Anyway, you're still a giant Tool Bag, Al; albeit a very wealthy one.

By the way, check out the exchange between Prince Al and congresswoman Blackburn (R) from Tennessee. Albert is in classic form, smug look and sighs included.

Class Warfare 101: The "Not A Dime" tax myth

During the 2008 US Presidential campaign, and after he was elected, President Obama repeated his mantra of “Your taxes won’t increase one dime” for families making less than $250,000 a year (or individuals making 200,000 or less). Obama was able to ride a populist wave against those that have, as well the negative sentiment against Republicans due to the Bush years, to win the presidency. However, examining the "Not A Dime" tax pledge shows that it was, at worst, a lie, or, at best, an insane promise.

I shall now go over some of the ways in which everyone's taxes will go up.

1. Cap and Trade tax

Cap and trade has been the subject of much debate, at least on the blogsphere. President Obama's Cap and Trade policy in his budget calls for over 650 billion in revenues from Cap and Trade (Although Jason Furman, deputy director of the National Economic Council, said that figure is actually much higher, anywhere between 1.3 to 2 trillion). Expect higher energy costs, and not to just the rich.

Here's a preview of what could come from Cap and Trade:

1. North Dakota: Utilities say cap-and-trade means higher rates

2. Louisiana: Obama's new energy tax hits Louisiana the hardest


2. Cigarette Tax

President Obama, in February of this year, signed into law a federal hike on cigarettes. This hike, a doubling of the tax, is expecting to help fund health care for children (You are your brother's keeper after all. Sorry Cain).

Oh yeah, this won't affect anyone making less than $250,000 a year though. Wait, no, I lied. Sorry.



3. Inflation:

Federal spending has not stopped since the majority of voters in this country elected Barack Obama (Thank you, Mr. Bush). In fact, spending has gotten much, much worse. When federal spending increases this much then inflation is always a real possible. Richard W. Rahn, Chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and a contributor at The Cato Institute, breaks down why a big inflation rate just might be around the corner:

"Return of Money Snatchers?"

An increase in government spending must be financed by increasing taxation, or increasing government borrowing, or creating more money by the central bank (the Federal Reserve), or all of the above. Increasing taxation or government borrowing does not directly increase inflation, but if the central bank creates new money faster than goods and services are increased, inflation will result.

Keep an eye on the printing press.


4. Federal Income Tax?:

Perhaps some of you are saying to yourself "Hayek, Obama was clearly talking about Federal Income tax during his campaign and when he addressed the congress". Well let's assume for a moment that he was just referring to Income Tax. An editorial titled "Who Pays Taxes" appeared in the Washington Post this month, a paper with a liberal reputation. The editorial stated the following:

President Obama has promised that taxes will not be increased for families making under $250,000. That is a promise that will probably have to be dropped down the road. There just isn't enough revenue to be found above that figure unless we create a system so lopsided that voters would always want more government spending because it would come at such a low price.

The commonly used political definition of "rich" has crept up in recent years from $100,000 to $250,000. Either that definition is going to have to change again, or we will have to come to terms with the fact that the middle class will have to face higher tax burdens, too

Nice to see that the label "rich" keeps getting lower, and lower, and....