Your Future – Australian Electric Bills Rise 75% in 2 Years

This is what the ecoNazis have in mind for you – as currently being experienced in Australia:

HOUSEHOLDS face even higher power prices from January 1 as electricity retailers recover the $360 million cost of the federal renewable energy scheme.

About 370,000 AGL electricity customers will be the first hit.

From next week a 3.8 per cent increase in charges will push up customers’ annual bills by $54.

It’s the first case of a NSW provider jacking up charges to recoup the cost of buying small-scale technology certificates, or STCs, which the Federal Government is introducing to help fund a shift towards green energy.

Can’t you just hear the green weenies saying “hey its only 3.8 Percent.  Everybody can afford that to SAVE THE PLANET!”.  Of course, the media in Australia is even more liberal than that in the US (if that is actually possible).  The actual, real news is in the last sentence:

By next winter, electricity will be about 75 per cent more expensive than just two years ago, meaning a typical family’s annual bill will be more than $1000 higher.

How many people would lose their homes to foreclosure if their electric bill came close to doubling in 2 years.  And this is just the start of a long, long list of ecoFantasy energy wishes.  The Ozzies still want a carbon tax and all the other green fantasies.  Soon they will all be living like the aborigines who were there in the 1700s when Europeans first came to the continent.

They Were Here Just A Minute Ago

The State of Florida is looking for something.  18,000 buildings that it owns, but doesn’t seem to be able to put their hands on right now:

The State of Florida is looking for help finding something you’d think would be hard to lose: approximately 18,000 buildings, owned by the taxpayers of Florida, that state officials can’t quite put their fingers on. What’s more, state officials say they don’t have the people to hunt them down, so they want to use tax money to hire an outside company to find each building Florida has misplaced.

Could there be any better example of how government has gotten too big?  And this is just 1 of 50 states.  And if the Federal Government were asked to produce a list of all the buildings it owns?

But remember – government is short of money – they always, always, always, always need more.

Rhode Island – Tax On Miles Driven

There is nothing that your government does but need more money.  And Rhode Island is thinking up new and creative ways to destroy wealth – including one new idea to tax you for every single mile you drive.  Whether you drive inside Rhode Island or not apparently:

The major elements include:

•Both new and higher fuel taxes. The proposals include increasing the gasoline tax, now 30 cents, by up to 15 cents per gallon by 2016….They also include a new “petroleum products gross earning tax,” beginning with the equivalent of 10 cents per gallon of gasoline in 2010 and adding another 5 cents in 2014. That would affect all petroleum products, from gasoline and aviation fuel to those made from petroleum derivatives, such as plastics, paint and fertilizer.

•Car registration fees, now $60 for two years, would rise $40 per year immediately and could more than double, to $140, by 2013

A new mileage fee. The $150-million plan would not include it, but the $300-million plan would impose a half-cent-per-mile fee… At a half-cent per mile, driving 10,000 miles per year would cost $50 per vehicle. One cent would cost $100.

Also referred to as a VMT fee (for vehicle miles traveled), the mileage fee would be based on odometer readings reported by vehicle owners when they renew their registrations. The mileage could be verified during mandatory auto inspections

Tolls. The $150-million plan could include tolls, $3 per car and $6 per truck, only at the Connecticut border

Tolls on a new Sakonnet River Bridge. The plan relies heavily on shifting the estimated $210-million cost of a new Sakonnet River Bridge, now the DOT’s responsibility, to the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority. It also assumes that the authority would borrow the money to pay for the bridge and charge tolls to pay the cost. Shawver said it isn’t clear how much the tolls would be, but guessed they would be in the $3-per-car range. That would take the cost of the new bridge off the DOT’s hands, while giving the authority the prickly job of imposing the tolls.

One other interesting fact.  Rhode Island already spends $354 million a year on its transportation systems.  So this postage stamp sized place is already spending $1 million a day and apparently getting broken bridges, bad roads, and lousy public transportation.

So based on that fact, why would giving more money to the obviously incompetent state transportation authority be a good idea?  Do you think they will spend the money wisely?  I would expect all the managers in the DOT to get a raise, lots of bonuses to be doled out to all the contractors, but if they do all this crap they will simply end up with the same crappy transportation system.  Only it will cost two or three times more than today.  And they will be back in a few years begging for more tax money.

And this doesn’t count the money that is obviously being spent by county government, city government and who knows what other overlapping and duplicate wasters of tax money are also spending on transportation.

But they are good liberals up there in New England.  And apparently they hate Conneticut since they only want to charge tolls on getting in and out of that state.

Good luck with getting any value for all those taxes you will be paying.

Tax Me More – Version 1040

Bravo to Congressman Campbell:

California Republican John Campbell yesterday introduced in the House his “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act,” which would amend the tax code to allow individuals to make voluntary donations to the federal government above their normal tax liability. The bill would place a new line on IRS tax forms to make this easy.

Mr. Campbell says he has heard the “cries” of those wealthy Americans – Mrs. Clinton, Warren Buffett, Barbra Streisand – who reject the lower tax rates passed in 2001 and 2003 and complain that they and their fellow rich don’t pay enough. “It’s a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation,” he says. His bill would give liberals a chance to salve their consciences without having to raise taxes on millions of Americans who already feel overtaxed as it is.

My simple predictions:

1.  The Democrats will never let this bill see any light of day.  it will be holed up in some House subcommittee undergoing “review” till this Congress is history.  It would be a most dangerous thing for Democrats to actually give people the freedom to make their own choices – especially about how much of their hard earned money goes to the government.  Allowing people to choose this essential hold over their lives would absolutely destroy the whole premise of what the Democrats stand for.  They are about controlling people – not giving them choice.

2.  Why is Warren Buffett giving most of his money to Bill Gates’s charity instead of just handing it over to the government?  He wants rich people to pay more in taxes – why is he not giving the earnings of his lifetime to some twits who would spend in all in less than a month?

3.  As a thought experiment – just how much money would actually come in if this box were on the 1040 form making it extremely simple to allow good progressives to put their money where their considerable mouths are?  The Treasury got about $2.9 million in contributions last year.  The US governnment is scheduled to spend $3 trillion dollars in FY2008.  My calculations show that as spending $5,707,762 a minute.  Yes, every minute of every day of every week of every month of the whole year.  So that lousy three million in contributions would only fund the government for 30 seconds odd.    Do you think they would get enough in “contributions” to fund 2 minutes?  I certainly don’t think they would.  Maybe, just maybe they might get enough for 1 minute.

4.  And don’t forget – you are not paying enough in taxes.  The Obamamessiah says so.  The Hildebeast says so.  The Great and Wonderous Algore certainly says so.   But would they give half their estates directly to the governement?

Good Use of Tax Money?

Let’s see, 18 designs and $200,000 already spent. Projected total cost $1 million. And this is for one wheelchair access ramp? Only in the Democratic Communist People’s Republic of San Francisco:

San Francisco should not have to spend $1 million on a wheelchair ramp in the Board of Supervisors chambers to assure equal access for people with disabilities.

There must be less expensive options than the 10-foot ramp that has been through 18 designs and consumed more than $200,000 in planning.

What I’m most shocked about is that Pravda of the Left Coast is saying that this is not a good use of tax money. And why must this million bucks be spent? The Lifetime Employment for Lawyers Act (also known as the ADA). One of the supervisors is a paraplegic and there are only steps up to the podium.

I have an idea for these guys. Hire someone at $80K a year who’s whole job is to stand around and haul any disabled people up and down the steps. Have him buy some plywood and 2×4’s and in his spare time build the fracking ramp. And even with salary, benefits, expenses, vacation time, materials, and everything else you would still be able to get the job done for less than $150K. Even if it took a whole year.

Or just have him haul the disabled up and down and you have a decade’s worth of disability access without changing anything else.

Hey, you self-righteous progressives who chat about blood for oil. How many homeless people could have been fed with the $200,000 already spent on the 18 different designs? Would a million dollars get clean needles and condoms to the entire city for a year?

No ramps for condoms!

You Will Have Tide Power!

Or my name isn’t Gavin McTide Newsom!:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday he still wants to submerge giant turbines below the waters of the Golden Gate Bridge as a way to generate energy for the city, despite a study that recently concluded the idea would cost tens of millions of dollars and is not financially feasible.

And this boils the whole eco-fanasty movement down to one representative item. These things would be huge, expensive, and produce power that costs over 1000% more than you can generate elsewhere.

A study paid for by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission found that the turbines would cost as much as $15 million each and $750,000 a year to maintain.

Power generated from the tides would cost between 80 cents and $1.40 per kilowatt hour, according to the study. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s commercial rate for power, for example, is 12 cents per kilowatt hour.

But does that mean anything to Mayor McTide? What does he care – he’s rich. If his electricity bill goes from $3,000 to $30,000 a month it wouldn’t bother him at all. His trust fund generates more than that per day. In fact, he’s already fired one insolent toady who refused to believe in the power of McTide:

The mayor’s push to drop turbines below the bridge became part of the recent controversy surrounding the high-profile firing of San Francisco PUC General Manager Susan Leal, who said she backed away from the proposal when she received the results of the study commissioned by her agency. City Hall insiders said her disagreement with Newsom over the future of tidal power was part of the reason Leal was ousted from her job late last month.

If you refuse to follow in the enlightened green and socialist pathways of the glorious leader you are eliminated to the greater good. Today its mostly figurative (just loss of income and status and such) but tomorrow it will be facing the wall and a bullet through the back of the head. Perhaps they will be as merciful as the Germans during WWII who would allow their Italian execution victims to turn their heads and view the ocean one last time before they were murdered – but since this is a GREEN issue probably not. Kneel down and take it in the back of the head – you denier.

And what’s most impossible about the whole thing is where they are actually proposing to put these huge turbines:

If officials eventually decide to submerge turbines in the bay, the hilly underwater topography in an area east of the Golden Gate Bridge, near the Bay Area Discovery Museum in Sausalito, makes for the best location, the study found.

It has been 8 years since I was in Sausalito, but even back then while walking down the street in the space of 30 minutes we saw two different Rolls Royces. These people are seriously rich liberals. Do you think people with that kind of money are going to sit still and let some Socialist punk from San Francisco drop great big turbines in their ocean and spoil their view? This thing would be litigated until the next Big One shoves most of the place about 20 miles to the west and under water – and probably until the Big One after that as well.

This proposal has as much possibility of being realized as your odds are of finding a tap dancing snake. But pushing the idea sure enhances Mayor McTide’s green credentials.