Posted on Thursday, 4th June 2009 by Patrick Dorwin
Democrats may allow oil company tax to be passed to consumers
As if any intelligent, thinking person actually believed that Jim Doyle could tax a business without the consumers paying for it in the end anyway.
Assembly Democrats might alter their 2009-11 budget proposal to let oil companies pass on a $260 million tax to consumers, key leaders said Tuesday, but other Democrats question whether the tax should remain in the spending plan to be voted on as early as June 10.
The oil tax proposed by Gov. Jim Doyle and approved by the Legislature’s budget committee last week is designed to raise money to pay for roads — amid a projected $6.6 billion budget shortfall — while barring oil companies from shifting the tax onto consumers in the form of higher gas prices.
Ben over and grab your ankles Wisconsin taxpayers, here comes another $260 million out of our economy. Aren’t you glad that this economy is so good?
h/t: Real Debate Wisconsin
Posted in Home | Comments (22) |
22 Responses to “No, you don’t say!?!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Not to nitpick here, but legislators can not decide what is or is not “constitutionalâ€. That’s not their job. They make the law and the Judicial branch, if asked, decides whether it violates the Constitution or not.
But to make a comment like, “We can’t do this because we think it’s unconstitutional†tells me that not only do some lawmakers not understand basic economics, they also don’t understand basic political science.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Mr Pelican Pants. You are not nitpicking.
Democrats in Wisconsin are hooked on taxes. Wisconsin is way way way beyond broke. More taxes screw the public who likewise are way way way beyond broke. Legislators are stealing money that is not theirs to steal. Tobacco money, transportation money, Patients compensation money etc have all been raided recently. Why? So hard choiced did not have to me made.
So what does the Legislature and Doyle do? They tax the public more, the demogogue the oil companies, the PAY OFF TRIAL LAWYERS and they PAY OFF WEAC.
None of this fixes the problems we have. And it won’t balance the budget. Raising taxes creates less money for citizens to spend. Less money for citizens to spend creates less revenue and fewer jobs created.
So, again, naturally, the legislature and Doyle create a straw-devil BIG OIL and vow to make BIG OIL PAY DEARLY for raping us!! How does Doyle and the DEMS giving more money to WEAC help me?
How does raising taxes on OIL PRODUCTS help me?
Oil companies will pass on the cost. Every company does. It’s been tested Constitutionally before.
So in conclusion, they can PRETEND not to know about the reality of this type of tax policy being unconstitutionally, but THEY’VE BOUGHT THEMSELVES TIME DISHONESTLY.
We are fuxed.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Mr. PP: I guess we could save a few more bucks by eliminating the LRB, too:
http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/Legal/index.htm
Isn’t it a good thing to have legislators who might actually ask “What’s the right way to do this, if at all?”
Hey, Mr. PP, you said exactly the same thing at “Real” Debate Wisconsin.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I know. I’m allowed to say the same thing on different blog sites regarding the same issue, aren’t I? I mean, so long as they are my words and I identify myself each time as…myself…then, it’s OK…isn’t it?
June 4th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
My comment has nothing to do with the oil tax pass through language. My comment is in regard to a much larger issue of when legislators annoint themselves as justices and lay claim that something can not be legislated because they believe it is unconstitutional.
By doing so, they effectively take the Executive and Judicial branch of government out of the mix and deem themselves judge, jury and executioner on the adoption, enactment, and judicial review of any and all legislation. That, in turn, silences the people, as their voice rests in the Legislature and they have an expectation that voice manifest itself through legislation.
If a lawmaker unilaterely decides that he/she will not draft a bill because they have already made up their mind it is “unconstitutional”, we need to seriously consider the ramifications of that action. Again, that is neither their job nor their role in government.
And that was my argument. And if I have to argue it on other blog sites, I will continue to do so.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
No, anonymity is useful if you’d like to hurl insults instead of argument. This is the place for that, sort of like the way RDW is the place for real debate. Oh, wait, I thought you were saying it was OK because you’re using your real name.
No, I don’t think you can assume a legislator hasn’t received good advice about whether something would pass constitutional muster. I think the process of passing laws is that the lobbyist takes the bill from the bill mill to the legislator along with a satchel of campaign contributions and promissory notes for more, the leggy adds a few bonuses for his district and friends, they pass it to the LRB for slight revision (as they can’t declare it tasty until they’ve peed in it) and then it returns for back-room examination and then it’s out on the floor. All along the way, lawyers have looked at it. Otherwise all those campaign contributions would be useless as grease to get the law passed.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Oh, I see Foust has designated himself the blog police again. One wonders if excess estrogen not only causes baldness, but acute bitchiness.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:57 am
When did “hurl insults”? I was making a valid and lucid argument and never insulted anyone. If I did, I apologize; but after reading my comments, I do not see it.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:11 am
“when legislators annoint themselves as justices”
Why wouldn’t they? Justices have anointed themselves as legislators.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Exactly my point. One branch should never assume the duties of the others.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Mr. PP, you’re always a gentleman with wit and charm, as well as handsomeness, so you’re a lot like me. You didn’t hurl insults. Other people did! (Paul’s the leader of the Gus/Mickey Fan Club.)
June 5th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Okay, thanks. It’s early on a Friday morning and I haven’t had my coffee yet…you do the math.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Mr. PP
I hope that you saw my post as the sardonic remark it was, and not a defense of the now unfortunately common practice of one branch usurping the duties of another.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Doyle is a sick man, he stole the money we put in the budget for the roads. He knows that every time he empties/steals from that particular budget, (<2% of the entire budget), he can use it to justify bending the taxpayers over again and again and again.
He must cut the pretend child care and welfare programs. He must expect people to participate and work if they can. The state can no-longer afford to pay people to watch and care for their own children and their neighbors children, it was a stupid idea to begin with.
Wake up WI, the oil companies are not the bad guys, the oil doesn’t just jump out of the ground into your car. The government already takes a lions share of the profits. They are trying to get a 60% share like GM. When the government controls and produces gas, it will be done in a corrupt and inefficient manner, like everything else the government runs.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Marvin…totally; I’m with ya’.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Doyle and the liberals have to keep handing out.
That’s how they stay elected.
As for the blog Police officer Barney Foust, he has ceased to matter. He is just desperately seeking someone to have human contact with him.
He’s irrelevant now.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Ah Foust, ever the master of changing the subject.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:18 am
The point is that a very very very small percentage of the 6.6 billion dollars is being spent on roads and education. But the justification for the budget is based on road and education. Administration, free medicare/caid, and welfare is where they are burning the money. On people that can, but don’t.
Doyle is sick, stands there laughing and smiling at the entire population of WI during his speeches, probably because he can hardly believe what he is saying and what fools the people are. A fool and his money are easily parted. You are being parted with your money, your jobs, your businesses, for a bunch of people that can participate, but choose not to. Tell them to hit the road…
June 5th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I saw this and immediately thought of Foust…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
June 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Fred, if you’d just lift your ban on me, I’d be glad to return to “R”DW. Maybe you meant this link, no:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
“Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent.”
I think I have many characteristics that are non-troll: I use my real name, I don’t engage in ad hominem attacks, I’m not a “concern troll”, I’m hilariously funny even to many of those I’m disagreeing with, and of course I’m far more handsome than the trolls you linked to.
For example, my first post here is quite on-topic and not inflammatory.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Bullshit, Foust. You try to inflame by pointing out that someone said the exact same thing on another blog.
It’s probably that passive-aggressive self-victimization bullshit that got you banned from R!DW in the first place.
June 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Refer to my 11:11 p.m. post from last night again. Clearly, by your lack of reading comprehension, you are another fine MPS graduate.