Is this only on “home heating oil” or all diesel ?
Ø won’t sign it... he’s for the little guy, and won’t allow this. /sarc
WHY?........................
Using Karl Marx’s ideas to help the middle class is like using Adolph Hitler’s ideas to help the Jews.
I’m sure that will affect the states that vote democratic mostly, so good. You wanted one party rule, choke on it.
You don’t understand. According to the article, the fee lowers energy costs for the consumer.
Why wouldn’t that be a good thing? /sarc
Next come the smallpox blankets.
...and then Joe Kennedy can blame it on greedy oil companies and kiss Venezuela’s ass to get “free” heating oil for poor people.
Rent-seekers . . . and look at their arguments, seen them here before?
From the article:
“...The bill prohibits oil companies from passing the fee on to consumers...”
-
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Our lawmakers are such a bunch of morons.
Money is money, it has to come from somewhere.
The only thing that requirement does is keep the fee
from being itemized on the customer’s bill so that
the consumer won’t blame their politicians for the 2 cents/10 gallons.
Tried to access their website (not the article but the organization that this money is funding)
Seems like most of the pages are unavailable.
Global corporations want to bust the small farmer, they want all the land.
I know sounds like a conspiracy theory.
So What!
Well the Republicans in the House won’t allow something like that to happen. Oh wait they are all RINO’s. Nevermind. :-)
The EXEMPT Congress is smart enough
and has enough mendacity
to make “laws” for others from which THEY,
THEIR FAMILIES, and THEIR STAFF are exempt.
There you go, someone is getting a kickback.
The bill prohibits oil companies from passing the fee on to consumers, but taxpayer advocates said that’s a sham and that the money has to come from consumers.
More proof congress doesn’t understand economics...
I haven't seen the farm bill, so I'm not sure why Congress is calling it a farm bill. But as mentioned in related threads, this bill has significant constitutional problems imo.
More specifically, regardless what FDR's pro-unconstitutionally big federal government activist justices wanted citizens to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers in Wickard v. Filburn, both Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court had previously clarified that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce. Using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," Jefferson had essentially indicated that intrastate commerce is off limits to Congress.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphasis added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
But since enemies of the Constitution will argue that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that matters, please note the following. The Supreme Court later reflected on Jefferson's words by clarifying the following limits on Congress's Commerce Clause powers. Not only does Congress have no constitutional authority to interefere with intrastate commerce, but Congress cannot tax such commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And since bill in question is a farm bill, note that before Constitution-ignoring FDR had a chance to establish an activist justice majority, Constitution-respecting justices had clarified the following about "government" power to regulate agriculture. Expressed in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, justices had essentially clarified that the states had never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate agriculture.
“From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added).”—Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.
Note that I have yet to find a reference to United States v. Butler in the Wickard v. Filburn opinion, corrections welcome.
The reason that corrupt federal lawmakers have been getting away with usurping state powers and stealing associated state revenues in the form of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes as evidenced by this farm bill is the following imo. Sadly, parents are not making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
bastards.
2/10 of cent per gallon. It’s not really the fee, but one more stinking form for the companies to fill out and track.