The Unintended Consequences Of Getting What You Want: Part 2

First, let me apologize for not writing as frequently as I'd planned. Life has had an annoying habit of getting in the way lately, as well as some of the fire being burned out of me due to some infighting with people I thought were friends and fellow conservatives - turns out they were neither. Go figure...

Every once in a while, however, along comes a story that just deserves to get ridiculed, and this is one of them.

The socialist utopia formerly known as the state of California has proposed a new tax. That's not all that shocking, I admit, until you learn just what they're going to tax - fuel efficient cars. They won't be taxing the cars themselves, per se. After all, who would buy the ugly Prius if it got taxed more than that much nicer looking - and almost as fuel efficient - Corolla sitting next to it in the dealership's lot? The government would never do anything quite so........gauche... Would they?

Not when they can tax how many miles you drive every year, they wouldn't. That's right, folks - California State Senator, Mark Desaulnier (a democrat), has proposed a tax....on the miles Californians drive...in their more fuel efficient cars, hybrids, or just plain electric cars...that the environmentalists and the government pushed so hard for people to drive...

Why? Well, as in all things having to do with economics, liberals aren't as smart as they profess themselves to be. See, even with California's ridiculously huge gas tax of almost $0.53 a gallon (but it's the greedy oil companies that are price gouging you, don't ya know?), because hybrids and their ilk are becoming more prevalent and using less gas, the state isn't getting as much revenue from their huge tax. Yes, liberals, that's right - if you tax something that people use, they tend to use less of it, which leads to less tax revenue - which in Liberal-Land apparently means new and/or higher taxes are needed.

Well, we certainly can't ask the government to do with less, can we?

It's difficult to understand how - in a state with roughly 30 million registered vehicles - slightly less than one million of these cars could affect their bottom line so much that a new tax is needed.

Liberals never cease to amaze, do they? Their answers to everything they deem problematic always seem to be one of three options, with very little variation:

Option 1: We just haven't spent enough money on that problem/issue. Let's create yet another government agency to do the same things that this "failed" agency couldn't get done. We need to raise taxes.

Option 2: The government hasn't even tried to fix this problem/issue, so we need to create a new government agency to look into creating a different new government agency that can look into the possibility of thinking about launching a study that might bring about the probability that pondering the possible solutions to this problem/issue would actually solve this problem/issue. We need to raise taxes.

Option 3: We need to raise taxes...

On second thought, they really only have the one option, don't they? ~ Hunter