What an amazing book. My wife, Janis, said she thought it was relevant when she read it and loved it in high school. I had never read it and was surprised to see how similar the thinking is now compared to what is in its pages. Maybe it is, and maybe it has always been and will always be so.

There are many parallels to today’s political discourse, and the one thing that struck me most is the constant theme of successful people only being in it for the money and not really caring about the public’s welfare. Conservative radio talk shows have circled this topic. But a thought became clear to me that these people, by being in business, have already contributed to society.

Perhaps Walter E. Williams has said this before, but it bears repeating. To preface, the “Occupy” movements certainly sound like the echoes of the naysayers in the Atlas book. The theme of the “haves” taking from the “have nots” seems to have a lot in common with today’s protests. However, how was anyone forced to buy a product (discounting Obamacare) or take out a loan they couldn’t afford? Besides, aren’t the producers already providing society with its energy, transportation, entertainment and day to day needs like food and clothing? Not to mention the number of people that are employed to provide these goods and services. How has everyone’s life been touched by these “greedy bastards” for the better?

While it’s true that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the filthy rich have probably done little to deserve their wealth, there are new million and billionaires all the time. They get rich “quick” by spending their lives inventing things that improve ours. How is that a bad thing?

I know I am preaching to the choir on this, but wouldn’t it be a great idea if everyone forwarded a short paragraph to everyone on their e-mail list so that the class warfare thing dried up? Sure, I am dreaming, but how has taxing the millionaires ever put a penny in my pocket or yours?

When people like Warren Buffett talk about how unfair it is that his secretary pays more in income tax than he does, I think several things:

• · Then pay your secretary more (of course, this will mean more taxes for her)

• · Or pay her taxes for her

• · Or pay what you owe for your Net-Jets company

All he and people like him (such as Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Hollywood actors and actresses and politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein) are doing by touting liberalism is to deflect the attention off themselves so the “Occupiers” won’t come after them or their families. They are cowards by not standing up for the United States and Capitalism, the things that made them able to be as successful as they are.

- FedUpEditor

By: Paul Driessen

When President Obama took office, regular gasoline cost $1.85 a gallon. Now it’s hit $4.00 per gallon in many cities, and some analysts predict it could reach $5.00 or more this summer. Filling your tank could soon slam you for $75-$90.

Winter was warm. Our economy remains weak. People are driving less, in cars that get better mileage, even with mandatory 10% low-mileage ethanol. Gasoline is plentiful.

Misinformed politicians and pundits say prices should be falling. Our pain at the pump is due to greedy speculators, they claim, and greedier oil companies that are exporting oil and refined products.

Their explanation is superficially plausible – but wrong.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) data show that 76% of what we pay for gasoline is determined by world crude oil prices; 12% is federal and state taxes; 6% is refining; and 6% is marketing and distribution. The price that refiners pay for crude is set by global markets.

World prices are driven by supply and demand, and unstable global politics. That means today’s prices are significantly affected by expectations and fears about tomorrow.

A major factor is Asia’s growing appetite for oil – coupled with America’s refusal to produce more of its own petroleum. Prices are also whipsawed by uncertainty over potential supply disruptions, due to drilling accidents and warfare in Nigeria; disputes over Syria, Yemen and Israeli-Palestinian territories; erroneous reports of a pipeline explosion in Saudi Arabia; concern about attacks on Middle East oil pipelines and processing centers; and new Western sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program and the mullahs’ threats to close the Straits of Hormuz.

Moreover, oil is priced in US dollars, and the Federal Reserve’s easy money, low interest policies – combined with massive US indebtedness – have weakened the dollar’s value. It now costs refineries more dollars to buy a barrel of crude than it did three years ago.

Amid this uncertainty and unrest, speculators try to forecast future prices and price shocks, pay less today for crude oil that could cost more four weeks hence, and get the best possible price for clients who need reliable supplies. When they’re wrong, speculators end up buying high, selling low and losing money.

Oil speculators play a vital role, just as they do in corn and other commodities futures markets.

Basic chemistry dictates that a barrel of crude (42 gallons) cannot be converted entirely into gasoline. Depending on the type of crude, some 140 refineries across the USA transform each barrel into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, asphalt, waxes, petrochemicals and other essential products.

This manufacturing process leaves them with excess diesel fuel, because American vehicles consume less diesel than refineries produce – due to air pollution laws that limit diesel use. US refineries export that excess diesel to Europe, which uses more diesel than gasoline, and Europeans ship their surplus gasoline to mostly East Coast consumers. US refineries also sell excess inventories of other manufactured products to overseas markets, but diesel is by far their principal export.

America exports $180 billion in finished products every month – $2.2 trillion annually in corn, wheat, cars, tractors, appliances, airplanes, pharmaceuticals and much more.

Last year, for the first time since 1949, America was a net exporter of fuel and other petroleum products. Those exports injected $107 billion into our economy and sustained thousands of refinery and other jobs that otherwise might have been lost, as refineries also struggled in our stagnant economy.

Farm and factory jobs would evaporate if we made exporting their products illegal. Prohibiting fuel exports, and demanding that refineries manufacture only what we need here in the States, would have the same effects on our employment, economy and living standards.

The USA has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable conventional oil, the EIA and other experts estimate, and enormous additional supplies in shale and tight sand deposits.  The best way to keep prices down is to produce more of this American oil, and import more from secure, friendly, nearby suppliers like Canada.

However, our government prohibits leasing and drilling on nearly 95% of the onshore and offshore lands it controls. It is dragging its feet on leases and permits for the remaining 5% and over-regulating production on private lands. It vetoed the Canada-to-US Keystone XL pipeline. It is imposing layers of costly and unnecessary new regulations on every aspect of energy production it does not simply reject.

We are losing billions of dollars in bonus, rent, royalty and tax receipts, killing countless jobs, and impairing Americans’ living standards, health and welfare.

“More exports mean more jobs,” President Obama said recently. “We need to strengthen American manufacturing. We need to invest in American-made energy and new skills for American workers.”

His words ring hollow. Above all, President Obama and his environmentalist and congressional allies want to end our “addiction” to oil, “fundamentally transform” America, and “invest” billions of dollars (borrowed from us and our children and grandchildren) subsidizing efforts to turn corn, switchgrass, algae and pond scum into fuel.

Generating billions of dollars and millions of real jobs by producing American oil and manufacturing American oil products doesn’t fit this agenda. Even though one of every ten jobs created in the last three years has been in oil and gas, when it comes to petroleum, Team Obama wants to punish success, and reward failures like Solyndra, Fisker and the Chevy Volt.

To paraphrase a recent White House jab at Republicans who want more drilling and fewer obstructionist regulations: Every time prices start to go up, President Obama heads down to the local pond or cornfield, makes sure a few cameras are following him, and starts acting like he can wave a magic wand, throw a few more billions around, and have cheap, eco-friendly biofuels forever.

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has made it abundantly clear that he wants to “boost gasoline prices to European levels” – $8 to $10 per gallon! He’s already half way to his goal.

Those prices would certainly force Americans to drive less, and “hope” the hype about “changing” to algae-gas becomes reality in less than twenty or thirty years.

Meanwhile, skyrocketing fuel prices will certainly “boost” the cost of transporting people, raw materials, food and products by wheels, wings and waterways; manufacturing anything still made in America; and preserving jobs, family and business budgets, and dreams that depend on affordable energy.

Hunting for scapegoats won’t lower pump prices. Reality-based energy policies will.
__________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

It’s a great thing that Barney Frank is not running for office again, but he seems determined to leave the country in chaos. Though it sounds like a wonderful “Robin Hood” story if Fannie and Freddie would essentially forgive principal on underwater homes, it is my opinion this would kill home values and throw the real estate market into more chaos.

Just as the real estate market is leveling out and things are getting better, Barney seems hell bent on throwing another wrench into a market that he nearly collapsed by forcing Dodd-Frank onto the lenders and giving loans to people who could not afford them. His term ends in January 2013, but why doesn’t he either a) drop dead or b) resign and leave us alone?

- Fedupeditor

Our politicians have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and now they have become the enemy. What will it take? Another armed conflict? No wonder liberals are for gun control!

Unfortunately, because Democrats run the Senate along with some squishy RINOS, we are in this mess. (Remember when Republican strategists said it would actually be a good thing that we did not take the Senate in 2010? Bah, humbug.) Yet even Obama himself recently said the extension needed to be for a year, but you will not hear that reported anywhere.

Once again, we are being led by people who base their decisions on polls not conviction. This is what finally got Republicans thrown out after taking the House and Senate in 1995. After several years of not doing what they were sent to do, people had enough and gave Congress back to the Democrats.
The optics must have been bad for Boehner, a career politician, so he decided to cave. Instead we got two more months of lower payroll “taxes” before they have to deal with the issue again. That’s about $40 a week for most people. Wouldn’t it have been better to extend it for a year like House Republicans wanted? That’s $320 ($40 times 8 weeks) the Senate passed versus $2,080 ($40 times 52 weeks)that the House wanted. Why can’t this case be made?

Yet there is a bigger issue that has not been addressed. One of our astute members who runs a business and actually has a payroll pointed something out. The money we are talking about is coming from the EMPLOYEE’s portion of FICA (Federal Insurance Compensation Act, government’s name for Social Security “tax”). Traditionally, employers have matched the amount that employees get deducted from their checks. But as our member explained, even though his employees’ FICA amounts have been reduced (for almost a year already), his employer’s portion has actually gone UP. By his calculations there is a dollar for dollar correlation to the reduction of the employee amount with an increase in the employer amount.

Of course, it makes sense that the money for Social Security needs to come from somewhere. Other than this payroll tax there is no mechanism for funding Social Security. If employees are not paying in then it would make sense Congress would deem that the employer must make up the difference. After all, if the money runs out, the game is up, right? The program would be shown to be the Ponzi scheme that it is.
This legislation can only hurt the long term employment outlook since it is costing more to hire employees. It will also hurt Republicans as people start to feel the 2010 elections were for naught. Therefore, it will be even more important that we elect Tea Party types to take over the Senate whether we win the Presidency or not.

So while it may look like the small increase in people’s paychecks is a good thing, it probably is not whether it’s two months or a year. Make no mistake. The future of our country is at stake in 2012!

FedUpEditor

FedUpEditor

Could it also be that black voters have very little money to give his campaign? Black leaders like Maxine Watters and Jesse Jackson are taking note, but will they vote Republican? Not a chance. There is no money for them from Conservatives.

It’s true some blacks are self-starters, but most have become takers of the welfare system. These people are dependent on government for their meager existence, and as long as they vote Democrat, it will continue. What they fail to realize is that the little checks they get from the government, and the fact they pay no income tax, it does not mean they are not paying any taxes to Big Government. Right now everything is taxed; from cable to cell service. What about sales tax? How about the government regulations that are sending jobs overseas and keeping our country impoverished? Instead, they want to blame the rich people that they are in their situation, not the liberal Democrats and Republicans who have created this mess.

If you look at our black community, how many of them have cell phones and big screen televisions, tattoos, fancy fingernails, expensive clothes, multiple piercings, etc.? They are already mentally “poor”.  Instead of investing in things that can get them out of their situations (like building a business as the Asians and Indians do – think service businesses and convenience stores), too many are spending money on instant gratification and waiting for Obama and the Democrats to stick to the rich so they can get MORE of their goodies.

And how much of this “bling” is purchased on credit? And how many of these credit cards go to collection? And because of our “easy money” policy toward the poor, how much of this debt is being written off or government subsidized? Just like the mortgage bail out, people usually don’t learn from continually being let off the hook. Before I go on, I am not opposed to people being able to spend THEIR money any way they want, but they are spending YOURS and MY money.

And please tell me the name of one person who has gotten rich or moved to the middle class from receiving welfare. When has any tax increase on the rich ever helped a poor person?

Besidesm if the poor  only knew how little of the money that goes to Washington for welfare actually makes it back to the people for which the program was designed, they might get the picture. An elected official needs to stand up and tell the public the percentage of money that actually goes to the recipients compared to the percentage that goes to generate the government jobs that administer the program (to buy votes?), pay for the administrator’s insurance, retirement, etc.

THIS IS THE REASON WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION! The golden goose is dying! Just as Socialism (and that is what we have no matter what Democrats say) has died everywhere it’s been tried because eventually we run out of other people’s money.

I know this is generalization, but the truth hurts. Why else would so many poor people turn to selling drugs or other crimes to make money? Because it’s EASIER and faster than going to work and building wealth. After all, not everyone gets caught, right?

- Fedupeditor

As you might recall, in 2008 EPA set an ozone standard of 75 ppb (parts per billion). Federal guidelines require EPA to revisit the ozone standard every five years, but last year EPA initiated a reconsideration of that standard and proposed tightening it to 70 to 60 ppb. In places where naturally occurring ozone levels can exceed the standard, including Yellowstone National Park, EPA can’t explain how to meet the new requirements.

A new study by NERA Economic Consulting shows the EPA’s health benefit assumptions are greatly exaggerated:

• EPA’s assumed causal relationship between ozone and mortality has not been supported by EPA’s science advisors;
• The health benefits EPA attributes to the tighter ozone standard should are due to a slight reduction in particulate matter (dust), which already is regulated separately by EPA; and
• The EPA’s own data show that the benefits of the proposed ozone standard will not outweigh the costs.

A study by Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI estimates that strengthening the ozone standard to 60 ppb could cost the U.S. economy more than $1 trillion per year between 2020 and 2030, and destroy 7.3 million jobs.

Air quality has and will continue to improve as the nation works to meet the existing standards. There is no reason to change the standards now.

- API

Owners love them, but none are especially cheap. The question remains: Are hybrids really worth it?

Hybrid options
While all of the major automakers have a hybrid in their lineup, several are achieving outstanding fuel economy without complicated batteries and motors.

Chevrolet’s Cruze Eco achieves 28/42 mpg city/hwy. The redesigned 2012 Ford Focus SFE and smaller Fiesta manage 40 mpg hwy, as does the hot-selling Hyundai Elantra. VW Golfs with diesel engines go 30/42 mpg city/hwy. These are roomy cars that cruise happily at road speed.

On the flipside of the energy equation are the benchmark Toyota Prius hybrid that delivers 51/48 mpg city/hwy and the Honda Insight hybrid that achieves 40/43 mpg. A Chevy Volt slips by with 93 mpg-equivalent, but that’s an electric ghost of a different tale.

Other gas-powered sippers are coming. Toyota’s Scion brand is launching the iQ, a four-seat car about a foot longer than a Smart. Chevrolet will replace its Aveo sub-compact with the Detroit-built Sonic this fall. Even large cars like the 2012 Chevy Impala and Ford Taurus will achieve over 30 mpg hwy.

General Motors CEO Dan Akerson recently announced his company will launch a diesel-powered Chevy Cruze in 2013 that should top 45 mpg hwy.

Hybrid and the pocket book
Let’s assume you drive 15,000 miles per year and gas hovers around $3.50 per gallon. A Cruze Eco, Focus SFE or Elantra would cost you just under $1,600/year to fuel. Gas-powered micro cars like the Smart or Scion iQ drop it to about $1,400. The Chevy Volt in gas mode and Honda CR-Z sport hybrid are comparable to these.

Hybrids and electrics generally do better. A Toyota Prius will consume under $1,100/year in fuel while the Honda Insight hybrid uses just under $1,300. Electric cars, according to EPA and power company estimates, will consume about $570 in electricity.

If you purchase a Cruze Eco, Elantra or Focus instead of a base Prius, you’ll save about $5,000 ($18,500 vs. $23,500). Buy the Cruze instead of a Volt trims around $14,000 (after rebates). The Honda Insight, starting under $19,000, is priced comparably with mainstream gas-powered compacts.

Given all of this, hybrids don’t pay for themselves in pure economical terms. It would take 10 years in fuel savings to justify the current price difference between normal compacts and a base Prius. If never driven in gas mode (unlikely), the payback on a Volt is about 14 years.

The Honda Insight is the only hybrid considered that will save cash from day one.

In conclusion
Overall, you probably won’t save money by purchasing a hybrid. However, like driving a Corvette or Ford F-150 Raptor, vehicle purchases often are about emotion as much as practicality. People tend to determine a monthly budget, then buy a car they desire. Maybe they lease a Chevy Volt instead of a Buick Regal Turbo? Or, they choose a loaded Prius instead of an Audi A3?

After that choice, the Volt or Prius definitely will save money on fuel day after day.

For reasons of image and “coolness,” few people outside of us nerdy journalists actually compare a Prius to a Corolla or a Volt to a Cruze. Drivers just don’t think that way. Each of us decides by our own values and emotions what is “worth it.” Price is only one factor.