1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

MSM Ignores Hidden Carbon Tax Provisions in Paulson’s Bailout 2.0

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by StevenOtero, Oct 2, 2008.

  1. StevenOtero

    StevenOtero Well-Known Member

    6,451 Messages
    415 Likes Received
    MSM Ignores Hidden Carbon Tax Provisions in Paulson’s Bailout 2.0

    Matthew Vadum
    NewsBusters
    October 2, 2008

    Why is the mainstream media –which keeps lecturing Americans that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s Bailout Package Version 2.0 must be passed immediately– ignoring what might be the most earth-shattering provisions in Paulson’s package?

    The media needs to start asking hard questions. Here is where they need to start. If you look at page 180 of the 451-page monster bailout bill that easily passed the Senate yesterday (PDF here), you will see that it includes at Section 116 language about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide.” It also provides, at Section 117, for a “carbon audit of the tax code.”

    What could a provision about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide” and another provision about doing a “carbon audit” of the tax code possibly have to do with restoring confidence in Wall Street’s troubled credit markets?

    The answer: NOTHING.

    This appears to be an attempt by global warming fanatics to lay the foundation for an economy-killing carbon tax just like the “cap-and-tax” system that is now destroying European industry.

    If you think the Mother of All Bailouts is bad, just wait till you see the carbon tax. Get ready to reduce your standard of living drastically.

    It really shouldn’t be a surprise that these non-germane provisions are included in legislation that is supposed to save all of us from economic Armageddon.

    After all, Henry Paulson is a confirmed environmentalist and global warming true-believer who abused his power at Goldman Sachs. While Paulson headed Goldman Sachs he simultaneously headed the Nature Conservancy and his wife was a former Conservancy board member. (See “In Goldman Sachs We Trust: How the Left’s Favorite Bank Influences Public Policy,” by Fred Lucas, Foundation Watch, October 2008.)

    Henry Paulson presided over Goldman Sachs’s donation of 680,000 acres of land it owned in Tierra del Fuego, Chile to the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society.

    One of the trustees of the Wildlife Conservation Society was H. Merritt Paulson, the son of Henry Paulson.

    As green critic Paul Driessen observed, at no time did anyone “assess the vast area’s potential value for timber, oil or metals, so that locals and [Goldman Sachs] shareholders would at least know the true cost of the giveaway.”
  2. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    78,457 Messages
    3,767 Likes Received
    All pork needs to be removed from this bill even if they need to go back and the tax payers should demand this. It is bad enough to bailout the irresponsible let alone get stuck with items that have nothing to do with the reason this bill was put in place to begin with.
  3. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,186 Messages
    2,027 Likes Received
    But how do you do that? For every one you want removed, they come back with two more. Both sides do this. There is no legislature to prevent this sort of thing on the books. Legally, you can't do a damn thing about it. The only guys who could effect change on this are the guys who are doing it to us.

    How's that for a perfectly screwed up deal on wheels?
  4. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    78,457 Messages
    3,767 Likes Received
    Not blaming one side over the other and you do it by holding them accountable by demanding it, by heating up the phone lines as voters have been doing. Sorry I don't buy that we can't do anything I believe they do what they want because people are too lazy to get involved. If people are not willing to get more involved then they deserve to get this is return. The power of the people has changed this country before sometimes in my opinion not for the better but none the less change has taken place when the people have stood up and demanded it.
  5. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,186 Messages
    2,027 Likes Received
    Your looking at a single issue. I'm talking about the pork barrel politics that go on every single day. I don't care how dedicated you are, you can't look at everything and the effort required to make this sort of grass roots effort work is just not a sustainable thing.

    The key is term limits but who's going to vote for that?
  6. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    78,457 Messages
    3,767 Likes Received
    The info is out there not in just this bill but by watch groups who focus on pork barrel items and I think those who are doing this should be called out. As for term limits I don't think that is a cure all and I have voted in the past for term limit in state government. The downside is when you do get good people you can't keep them
  7. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,726 Messages
    36 Likes Received

    Line item veto by the President is the answer. Not that our current president would use it.

    I would love to see this law enacted. I'm confident that McCain would not be scared to use it.

    What bothers me more than the pork is how are they going to pay for this disaster of a bill?
  8. sacase

    sacase Well-Known Member

    4,302 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    i don't think line item veto is the solution. I think that a bill needs to stand by itself, there should be no earmarks attached to them.
  9. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,726 Messages
    36 Likes Received
    You are correct, but how are people going to get elected if they can't buy votes with pork?;)

    That would mean they would have to stand up and run using ideas? That time has long passed us by I fear.
  10. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Bad Santa Staff Member

    61,243 Messages
    4,572 Likes Received
    I the line item veto is against the current constitution/law.

    Clinton got it for a short time but it was removed. I doubt there is a president that would not want it to combat the situation but I doubt they will get it again.
  11. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,806 Messages
    1,673 Likes Received
    The Supreme court made one of its big mistakes on the Line Item Veto.
    There is nothing in the constituition that differentiates between a regular veto and a line item veto. As a matter of fact Veto is not even in the Constituition- it is described as to NEGATE the item. They claimed that the whole bill has to go up or down= but the original INTENT of the Consitution was to have one item at a time considered; there was no thought given to riders or additions as is done now. So to a lot of original intent constituitional lawyers the Supreme court was all wet again. The line item veto is a response to the mess that is congressional action now= which was not what was intended in 1789.

Share This Page