Support Terrorism: Call Obama's Fuel Plan a "$1,300 Car Tax"

This is Osama bin Laden:

Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. Osama's family has lots of money--money they earned mainly by helping Saudi Arabia sell oil to Americans like you and me. At some point, his family gave lots of that money to Osama. Osama then became a terrorist. He used a good deal of his family's Saudi oil money to recruit, train, and enable other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They killed lots of Americans with the money Osama's family gave him.

Of course, this is simplified, but there's no denying the root of threat. In 2007, Thomas Friedman, writing for the New York Times, explained:

Sometime after 9/11 -- an unprovoked mass murder perpetrated by 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudis -- green went geostrategic, as Americans started to realize we were financing both sides in the war on terrorism. We were financing the U.S. military with our tax dollars; and we were financing a transformation of Islam, in favor of its most intolerant strand, with our gasoline purchases.

It's no secret that our dependence on foreign oil is a huge threat to national security in that it both enables extremism and fuels global terrorism. On top of the fact that an unhealthy, smog-filled environment is bad in general, the vulnerability our thirst for oil creates at home is one of the chief reasons for the new fuel efficiency standards unveiled yesterday at the White House by President Obama. Said the President:

And that's why, in the next five years, we're seeking to raise fuel-economy standards to an industry average of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016, an increase of more than eight miles per gallon per vehicle. That's an unprecedented change, exceeding the demands of Congress and meeting the most stringent requirements sought by many of the environmental advocates represented here today.

As a result, we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. Just to give you a sense of magnitude, that's more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria combined.

Sounds good, right? Not to some. For reasons that elude me, self-designated troop supporters like Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck can't get it through their skulls that our reliance on foreign oil funds terrorism. Malkin complained:

Nobody in the White House is going to call the president's "mileage and pollution" plan what it is. It's a $1,300 car tax. On the working class. On the middle class.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that over the course of a standard five-year car loan period, a person would save $2,800 in fuel costs, I'm continually blown away by the inability of these warmongering chickenhawks to sacrifice any little thing in the service of their country while the nation is at war--even when it's not really much of a sacrifice at all. But they can't do it. Our troops are fighting tooth and nail, every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all these whiners can do--with their overdeveloped senses of entitlement--is cry about not having access to cheap fuel for their gas guzzlers.

They'd rather keep sending America's troops on year-long tours to fight groups of Saudi-funded extremists instead of making any effort to cut the habit at home. And they're like this because it doesn't cost them anything. They've never been on the receiving end of where their gas money goes--like some of us have been--so they're not concerned with the consequences. This is a national security issue, and anyone who opposes an effort to cut back on the consumption of foreign oil is hindering American's fighting men and women.

For all his bawling on TV about how much he loves his country, you'd think a guy like Glenn Beck would be eager to do whatever is necessary to combat terrorism. Same for Malkin. But I guess they'd rather tell us we can have the money up front--money they'd eventually double--if we pry it from their cold dead hands. These are some real patriots, these two. And the troops surely appreciate it. Go slap another sticker on your Hummer H2, you parasites. Nah. I take that back. Make it a magnet. So you can remove it when you go out on Saturday night.

The troops will appreciate that, too.

Also available at VetVoice

 

Follow Brandon Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BrandonF

Comments

[carolrhill814]

That is all this Mr. Obama knows how to do tax tax and I just bet he doesn't pay his taxes in proper manner either just like his best friends don't either.

I don't trust one hair on his head nor will I ever he can't even tell the about his name or where he was born how can he tell the truth about anything in his entire life and that is the way I look at it.

[UKOH]

It's just that the "Party of 'NO' - and their henchmen on Fox Bile Doublespeak Olds" have totally lost the ability to even mount effective attacks these days. They are automatically against anything and everything Obama says and does. It reminds me of my wife when she is mad at me. For a couple of days even if I said "Water is wet." she would argue against me!

The point is this total no on everything is such a blunt instrument. The GOP can be picked off on their more absurd "NO"s - like this one - and loose all credibility. By rights 2010 should be a slam dunk for liberals but I will never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate.

In contrast the Conservative opposition in my native UK have much better chances. It will be a major surprise if they do not win the election next year and come to power. Rather than total "NO" on everything they are far more sophisticated. They support the government on sensible issues and attack hard when it is going off course. Far more effective.

[meast36]

Would you like to have an electric bill of under $20 per month? Would you like to have a relatively infinite supply of energy? Would you like to do all of this without drilling anywhere? Would you like to stop transfering American taxpayers wealth to countries that hate us? We actually CAN do this right now. We even have some of the infrastructure already in place. The answer is NUCLEAR ENERGY. Safety improvements have made accidents virtually impossible and nuclear power only costs pennies per kilowatt of power. The answer is right in front of our eyes. We just need to open them to see it.

[research]

Want Global thermonuclear war?

Caused by loose nukes?

Created by proliferation of nuke power tech into Bombs.

You know: Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel....

More nuke power = Mushroom clouds sooner and more often.

See my profile for proof, and a thousand other reasons Nukes are Insane.

Rooftop Solar and waste BioChar can provide all our energy needs, cheaper, safe and

Forever.

Rooftop Solar is already the cheapest electricity per KWH: 3 cents.

[nosey10]

meast36--You're right about the nuclear power plants and we are supposed to be getting another one-it's still in the "stages of all the government required data, etc." that normally goes on about anything that would help us with oil, gas, or nuclear power. Obama wants to pass a massive cap and trade environment bill that is strictly for the people like AL GORE, HE SAYS HE WANTS TO BE THE VERY FIRST 'CARBON BILLIONAIRE' and he will succeed if they vote for the Waxman bill. Now, getting back to all the name calling about Beck and Malkin, this is a car tax any way you look at it and what we really need to do is drill for gas and oil here and use clean coal -China's got the technology, why don't we have it? Like Pickens said, the congress can issue incentives to the oil and gas companies and allow them to drill since we are going to need fosil fuels for a long time yet. A car can be fitted easily to burn natural gas, very clean stuff. Why should the taxpayers be stuck with the bills for all this when it's going to be turned over to the private sector in the end and then we pay again to use it...This does not make sense to me, Friedman, but Beck and Malkin are telling the truth and we don't need the new cars to make the difference...

[John Allen]

We will change and it will be hard and it will take time. If we don't start now then when? Never going to happen as long as the Publicans can stop it. If you look at who made money through this downturn thats where the problem is. I remember hearing how smart Phil Graham was about the economy. He is one of the publicans that authored the demise of Glass Stegal. I also hear the publicans bowing down to Ronald Regan. Regan tripled the national debt. Deregulated the Savings and Loans. Had to bail them out and he is the great master, I don't think so. I was working in those years in the Steel mills. what happen to them He sold them out to put an end to the cold war. Right in the middle of all this we were in the drug business and the gun business. All in our name. Then came GW's daddy and gave them a pardon before there was even a trail. Sounds like some of the stuff his son pulled on us. Don't listen to these publicans read your history and we will get through this mess.

[neckozihp]

Ok John, explain to me how the debt under the Bush administration, and previous ones, was the problem, and now the Obama debt (which is multiple times worse in just 4 months) is the solution?

Every day I wake up and feel as if we our nation is living in a NIGHTMARE!!!
Good sense, and common sense, went out the window when Obama took over the helm.

[research]

Conservative Debt for wars and cronies destroyed the USA.

Debt for infrastructure and people:

Rebuilds America.

Investing in Americans always works.

[John Allen]

Let me see if I have this right, They add $1300.00 to the price of a car and we are fighting the terrorists , reducing our dependence on foreign oil, wait for it and helping reduce pollution? This is a no brainier? Over the last few years the price of cars have gone up more than that and the money went to a small group of people getting multi million paychecks. Now who do you think is behind stopping this bill? I don't think its the 250 million people in the USA that would benifit from it. So far our President has reduced our tax bill and didn't give those same people the millions they are so use to getting. Think their the ones that want this to fail. I think its the same people and the ones that can be led around with a carrot on a string. I can't understand why do they follow policies that have proven to harm our country. What makes someone follow a proven failure and not something that is going to do some good, Straight Politics It don't matter whats right only who's right. Look at the law not the lawyer and use common sense. I know thats rare in some circles.

b

[missouriwatcher]

Like Limbaugh and Savage, Malkin and Beck are just mouthpieces for the neo-con neofas cists.

[noaxe397]

Frank Luntz writ large again. The right wingers are just so proud of themselves for coming up with another bumper sticker slogan "$1300 car tax." Because Republicans are not capable of layered thinking, only linear thinking, (maybe it's a home schooling thing) they cannot comprehend anything over 6-8 words long. More than that and it's deer-in-th­e-headligh­ts look.

Here's a test for a right winger on energy. Go up to one of them, carefully, and ask if using nuclear power is a good way reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Have fun with that one.

[Kevin Prichard]

Mr. Friedman,

It's not very difficult to call Malkin on her convenient, partisan flip-flop. For example check out this post where she rips her fellow Americans for being addicted to foreign oil-

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/10/nozzle-rage-attack-of-the-pump/

[Yermammy]

To say she's "conflicted" is too kind.

[nosey10]

Malkin is completely right..we are very addicted to foreign oil...but did you see what happened when the price went up to $4 bucks? I'm on the freeway and everyone, well almost everyone is driving 55 mph and the need for oil was astounding as far as the number of barrels that dropped from our everyday use.... I remember hearing the numbers being in the millions less each month...My sister has a hybrid and the corn derived gas, she says, is not as good or gets as many mpgallon as regular gas. I still like the idea of natural gas-clean, safe, and the US has billions of barrels of it. We are going to have to drill anyway, for security reasons, so let's open up and let the oil and gas companies get to it. In the meantime, we have some time to get ready for better cars, trucks, etc.

[Chanrazig]

15 of the 19 9/11 mass murderers were Saudis...and we invaded Iraq! How can you talk to a party that thinks like this?

[tonygue]

How come nobody mentions to get out of this dependence maybe we should drill for our own oil in Anwar and along our own coastlines. Just like instead of all these other renewable energy sources we should maybe build our own nuclear power plants. I forgot that's too simple an idea. Do everything the hard way and raise our taxes. That's the only way to do things right.

[BruceHNV]

Not a simple idea. A simpleton's idea.

The fastest a new nuclear power plant (which won't fuel any cars, trucks, trains, boats or planes) can come on line is 7-10 years. And it produces lethal waste.

ANWR has too little oil to make a difference.

Offshore drilling will show returns in 10-15 years, earliest.

And burning that oil, if and when we do, we will be continuing to kill the planet.

Going renewable is not doing things the *hard* way, but rather doing things the *right* way.

[LeftRight]

First, learn what you're talking about. It's not Anwar, it's ANWR, or the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

Second, domestic drilling will provide us less than 5% of CURRENT usage, in 20 years.

Third, nukes are almost as bad an idea, because not only do they produce radioactivity which will harm the planet for MILLIONS of years, there is only enough fuel for about 15 years. Then we're right back where we are, without fuel, and tons of nuclear waste.

Anything ELSE you want debunked??

[ThinkingPatriot]

One more fact: Nuclear power plants take about 12 years to break even on the enormous amount of energy it takes to construct a plant.

[research]

And Nukes lead to proliferation.

[DSimpson]

Mr. Friedman's logic is ludicrous.

By calling an additonal cost per vehicle of $1,300.00 a tax, one is opposed to fighting terrorism? Fighting terrorism and potentially improved gas mileage are mutually exclusive events.

President Obama said the auto industry isn't his expertise..

If the government claims the additional cost per vehicle to be $1,300.00, the true additional cost by the year 2016 will more likely be $8,000 per vehicle. After all, isn't this the same government that spent over $7,000 for a toilet seat a few years back.


Further, Obama said recently that he has a lot on his plate. Two wars to fight, a number of bailouts, health care, record unemployment, and a massive deficit to worry about. He doesn't have the time to get involved with a takeover of the auto industry. Not to fear--he has plenty of time to do some quick calculations as to "saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years." Unless you know how many vehicles will be sold, how can you argue how much the savings will be? His more accurate statement was during the campaign of getting a tire gauge and making sure your tires are properly inflated to save fuel.

The thrust of the author was directed at Beck and Malkin.

It is inconceivable how a writer can questions sincerity to fight terrorism and then link it to arbitrary savings at the pump.

[DaveCarroll4]

Read the article. You're out of context. Michelle Malkin called it a tax, Freidman was quoting her, and referring to her and Glenn Beck. In fact, you're just agreeing with Mr. Freidman!!!

[DSimpson]

Freidman's analysis is that if you question spending $1,300 (calling it a tax) per vehicle, you must not fully understand the patriotic relationship between fuel economy and combating terrorism. Thus, he goes on to challenge Beck and Malkin's sincerity in fighting terrorism:
"For all his bawling on TV about how much he loves his country, you'd think a guy like Glenn Beck would be eager to do whatever is necessary to combat terrorism. Same for Malkin."

The question is the premise. Obama claims we can save 1.8 billion barrels of oil. How does he substantiate that claim? I don't think he can. Just like Obama claimed his economic plan was going to create or save 4,000,000 jobs. Right now we are losing about 600,000 to 700,000 jobs a month. As far as the oil saved, there is no way to make the determination until you know how many of these improved mileage vehicles will sell. If we only sell one high mileage car, can he claim we saved 1.8 billion barrels of oil? I think not.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"By calling an additonal cost per vehicle of $1,300.00 a tax, one is opposed to fighting terrorism? Fighting terrorism and potentially improved gas mileage are mutually exclusive events."

Explain. Did you get the bit that Osama bin Laden's wealth comes from oil? Do you see how, if we use less oil, less money goes to bin Laden?

Seeing how not only bin Laden, but such other designated villains as Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; and previously Saddam Hussein and Moammar Ghadafi drew massive amounts of money from their countries' oil resources, we have to ask why the Republicans from Gerald Ford through George W. Bush were so opposed to energy conservation programs including public transit.

"It is inconceivable how a writer can questions sincerity to fight terrorism and then link it to arbitrary savings at the pump."

That DSimpson can't grasp the point of hitting the terrorists in the wallet shows that he's no judge of inconceivability.

[DSimpson]

I fully understand the point of hitting the terrorists in the wallet. However, I question Obama's claim of "saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold."

IAs far as the oil saved, there is no way to make the determination until you know how many of these improved mileage vehicles ultimately will sell. For instance, if we only sell one high mileage car, can Obama claim that the one vehicle saved 1.8 billion barrels of oil? Of course not.

Therefore, any resultant savings (assuming the technology can be be developed) is dependent on the total number of these vehicles sold.

Obviously, Mr. Friedman buys into Obama's argument hook, line, and sinker. I don't.

[Chip W]

I agree. The logic is more than sloppy.
Calling the extra cost a tax hardly correlates to supporting terrorism.
Not that there's no connection, but it's picking out one tiny logical strand to reach a sensationalist conclusion.

[DaveCarroll4]

You know radical conservatives like Beck, Hannity and of course Rush, just blabber out the neo-con agenda; cut taxes, cut taxes and everything will just fix itself. How much proof do we need that, that is a failed concept? Besides... nothin' that's worth anything comes without some kind of "price"! Considering the incomes of those we're speaking of; WTF? THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY TAXES, PERIOD. WTF is wrong with forking up a little to secure Our Country? They definitely are not Patriots! Problem is... they have no concept of what an average American's life is like. None!!! I guarantee you they own homes, have new cars, have "savings", have complete health care coverage, don't know how much groceries cost, have job contracts, never have to choose which bill to pay this month and which one won't get paid or even need to worry about the price of gas! There is no recession for them. From that POV, you can run off at the mouth about anything that fits into your personal agenda for greed and elitist privilege! God... I just have such a hard time believing anyone with a brain pays any attention to them, let alone believes anything they say!!!

[DSimpson]

It's not the taxes, it's the GOVERNMENT SPENDING that is the problem. Spending, spending, spending, living beyond our means. Why? So the politicians can get re-elected. They bring home the pork so they keep you happy! Not happy? Then let's get rid of them all. Clean house and start over.

Were you describing the average American's debt, or the situation the Federal Government is in--both descriptions are the same. The difference in choosing which bills to pay is that the government just cranks up the printing presses or borrows more money from China, placing more DEBT on the backs of future generations. The individual doesn't have a printing press like the government. So he has to be even more responsible. Look at the fat-cat earmarks. Talk about waste!

[JudgeMoonbox]

"It's not the taxes, it's the GOVERNMENT SPENDING that is the problem."

So are you prepared to look at those government programs that have had the greatest spending increases during the Bush administration? National defense is one of the biggest winners.

Conservatives talk a lot about spending, but aren't prepared to take a look at the total budget.

A lot of the complaints they do raise agitate against programs that sound silly, but they don't look beyond the label. Take Jindal's complaint about volcano monitering. Do the Alaskans who found the ashfall from Redoubt Volcano in their driveways wanted it to be a complete surprise?

[jackbutler5555]

Size matters. My current car -- a conventionally powered sedan -- gets better than 35.5 mpg. It's a four door sedan that can accommodate four easily. There's no need to pay the extra $1300 -- unless, of course, you want something much, much bigger.

[dianhow]

Yes we have to get off our dependance on foreign asap.
. Beck and the far right do not put Ameica's interests first. We have to understand this :
REPUB 's WILL GIVE ANY CREDIT TO OBAMA. WHY ? 2010 then 2012 are election years.
Getting power back again - is the name of the GOP game. Many Millions of Americans -out of work - or scared of being let go - can not afford a new fuel efficient car. My car is 10 years old- gets 20- 27 mph- if it dies- we can only afford a used car. But still Obama has the right idea- its an investment in our future. We would not be in Iraq if not for our 'oil interests ' We guzzle oil like crazy in the US.

[dianhow]

OK that s good. Is that highway driving ?

[jackbutler5555]

Yes.

[Emlyn]

You remind me of a friend of mine who owned two 1960 VW Buses. When she tried to get them re-registered in the 1990's, they didn't pass the California State Smog Inspection. She couldn't drive them unless she had them fixed and her mechanic told her "they aren't worth fixing." What did she do with them? She had a two-car garage and put the cars into the garage because "one day, those cars will be worth something."

You also remind me of some the dudes that were against the Califronia State Smog Inspection. Won't work, you said. Well, it did work and the smog levels have gone down in California.

[marxmarv]

Wasn't/isn't there an exemption from tailpipe tests for vehicles of "classic" age?

[dianhow]

I meant to say GOP will give NO credit to OBama..

[research]

3% of our nations needs total possible domestic oil after 20 years of:

Drill Idiot Drill.

Obsessing on the last drop of oil, will not prepare us for the future.

Rooftop solar and Waste BioChar can easily supply more than we need in less than 10 years.

Solar and BioChar can supply us sustainably

Forever.

See my profile for proof.

[dianhow]

Not obsessing- just planning for the future.
Obama is all for alternative energy.

[research]

billions to nukes and "clean coal", how much to solar?

[Kai Holland]

PEOPLE! Sheesh. So much left-right anger. Let's work together to solve our problems, not call each other names.