Chicago is one of the greatest cities in the world, but I won't be visiting there unless it is on business any time soon. Starting today, Illinois' Cook county (which includes Chicago) raised the sales tax a point, pushing it to a nationwide high of 10.25%.

When neighboring counties have rates of 7 and 7.25 percent, why would Americans throw away an additional three percent of their money? A high sales tax in itself isn't a bad thing (note - fair tax,) but when there are other alternatives nearby, and the property and income taxes are still high, this will just take money away from local businesses. National chains may see a dip in profit for stores in the area, but will probably see it simply shift over to another store.

The story assumes a bit too much however:

The tax is estimated to bring in more than $440 million in new revenue.

That amount of extra revenue is based upon the fact that consumer spending will maintain the same rate, and that consumers won't go to other counties for a cheaper rate. In nearly every case, the government makes more money by cutting taxes, rather than raising them. When consumers need to spend less money on taxes, they will usually spend more money on goods and services. With the economy having problems, this will stifle, rather than stimulate the economy.

Thinking logically, by raising taxes, consumers aren't able to purchase as much as they would in the past. This lowers the profits made by mom and pop stores, which in turn could cause them to shut down business or cut back on expenses, which usually means employees. Either way, jobs will be lost, which equates to even less consumers, and the cycle repeats itself until there is a balance, which in turn means that more Americans are dependent on the government to provide for them.

Eventually, government will be taking a majority of your paycheck. Add this sales tax on top of Presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal to raise that highest tax bracket to a rate of 52%, with the cost of property taxes, and we're basically giving everything we earn to the government - not the idea our Founding Fathers intended upon.

A few days ago, CBS ran a story on the rising gas prices. Instead of showing sympathy for the average American being squeezed by gas prices, correspondent Priya David made the following statements:

"In fact, by 2012, higher prices could send an additional 10 million vehicles off the road."

“It would certainly ease congestion. Having that many cars come off the road would be like permanently parking twice as many cars as there are in the state of New Jersey,”

“Some look to Europe for solutions to the skyrocketing gas prices.”

David simply doesn't understand the plight that middle America has with rising fuel costs, and simply reiterates the hope of environmentalists of taking vehicles off the road. Congestion doesn't matter if we can't afford to drive our cars! Those looking to Europe are sadly misguided because of the way our infrastructure is set up. We typically live in suburban areas and drive substantial distances to work/school etc...

Here's the video straight from CBS for those not completely in shock who wish watch...

One of Europe's busiest airports - Amsterdam Schiphol in the Netherlands - has placed an environmental tax on all flights. In doing so, the tax of nearly $18 for European flights and $70 for International flights, is set to reduce travel throughout the country, and in turn the amount of business. The airport expects zero growth in passengers this year, with a decrease expected in July and August due to the tax. Travel industry experts believe many passengers will go to nearby German airports to avoid the fees.

You have to give them credit - The carbon tax is doing exactly what they hoped for with a reduction of usage, which was the main goal of the environmentalists in the first place. That reduction however will only work if there is somewhere close to use as an alternate to avoid the tax.

If every airport added a tax, then the effect would be minimal because people would still need to travel. Essentially that's the same as my Chili's Happy Hour Theory in which they promote all day happy hour...Which is just crazy marketing for not actually having a happy hour, but hoping you don't realize this and buy into the scam.

In somewhat of a stunning dissension from Nancy Pelosi and Democrats, Barack Obama will not support the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

The cartoon in this post gives a nice summary of what the Fairness Doctrine entails, but for those unsure, it basically means that the leftists feel it is unfair that talk radio is predominantly conservative, and therefore feel a need to balance it with a liberal viewpoint. Mind you, Air America is out there but simply doesn't have the personalities or viewership to compete with the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and others.

The FCC found the doctrine to be unconstitutional in 1987, and by doing so, gave some life to AM radio, leading the way for conservative talk radio as it is today. Interestingly enough, the same folks who are in favor of this to break up the conservative media machine that is talk radio, fail to see the liberal influences in all other areas of media.

As a big listener of talk radio, here's hoping that nothing changes to make it go away. Not to mention that with the rise of the internet, anyone can have a voice, be it conservative or liberal - and that's a good thing.

Of course I'm just kidding...Diddy doesn't give two sh*ts about you or who wins the election, as long as he still lives in his mansions and makes tons of money...

Sean Combs isn't content with you simply voting as was the case in 2004. Rather, he's pushing his celebrity clout, at no surprise, in support of Barack Obama. Supporting a candidate is one thing, and I realize you are a multi-millionaire rapper/producer/extrordinaire, but saying "Obama or Die" simply makes you look like a fool.

Of course, the double standard still exists when it involves race, and BET.

I strongly encourage all to become informed, and vote, but for heavens sake - don't die.

Much of the political landscape has been abuzz with the unveiling of the Obama Presidential Campaign Seal. I first noticed this on Drudge, and made light of it on the Neowin Forums. I was taken aback by the audacity Obama showed in conveying this image, but I don't come close to some of those that are citing obscure law regarding the use of the Presidential Seal and the legalities involved.

For those wondering, here is a comparison of the two seals:

While this seal shows great confidence, it also shows a great deal of arrogance - not that Obama would try to change the official seal, but I'm sure there are people who will believe such things. I have a feeling that those already in Obama's camp will find nothing wrong with this, and those against him will be screaming bloody murder. The independents probably don't care too much - or at least won't by the time November rolls around.

I applaud Obama for making his own seal, but think he should have approached it differently. Simply by analyzing the two seals and looking at the history of the Presidential Seal, there were a couple mistakes made that makes one scratch their head.

First, Obama kept the eagle holding the olive branch and the thirteen arrows. The olive branch represents peace, and the arrows a combination of the thirteen colonies and war. Oddly enough however, Obama removed the fifty stars along the inside border - which represent each state. I would think that for speaking on unity, he would have left all states in there to allude to his supposed strength as a unifier.

Next, Obama replaced the President's coat of arms with that of his own logo. Of course he can't keep the same logo, but when you take into account that the original coat of arms represents the military strength of the United States. My wife, who abhors politics, asked sarcastically if he was replacing the military strength with that of "hope," which is better than any witty comment I may have come up with.

Obama also changed the Latin from "Out of Many, One" to "Yes, We Can." I have no issues with this and thought it was quite intelligent. Others have pointed out that the Latin comes across as opossum, which is something that he shouldn't want voters associating him with, but I guess you can't win over everyone.

Finally, instead of the prestigious colors used in the original seal, the Obama seal uses a blue and white palette, which looks to be geared toward the "Blue States" and Democrats, rather than all Americans. A patriotic Red/White/Blue palette would have better served to subconsciously give the idea of a united America.

Will this come back to haunt Obama in the general election? No, as it shouldn't. But it does give Americans another log to add to the fire of his arrogance which can be his downfall if the American People see him as another elitist.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I picked up the Political Machine 2008 from Stardock, and for the most part it was a very enjoyable game.

After creating my own character and winning the 2008 campaign mode, I decided to try one of the games other options - The Election of 1860, campaigning on the issues faced by the North and South.

Not thinking too much into it, I played as myself versus Barack Obama. I was considered a "Northern Republican" and Obama a "Southern Democrat."

While I understand the history of the country and such, I did find it a bit creepy that Obama was campaigning for slavery (even though his personal in-game characteristics showed otherwise) and even won the support of the slavery organization.

Maybe Stardock owner (and fellow Metro-Detroiter and Neowin member) Brad Wardell AKA Frogboy will have noticed this, although it wasn't mentioned on TPM2008 forums as of this post.

Former Comptroller General David M. Walker, CEO and President of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation wrote an excellent article today entitled Back to the Future, in regards to the budget and how it pertains to the future of our country...

It's been said that this election is one that will go down in history. While this year's Presidential election process has already made some history, it is important that both major party candidates reflect on lessons from the past in planning for our future. In this regard, it is instructive to note a few ways in which we have strayed from the principles that our Founding Fathers established at the beginning of our great republic.

At the outset of our nation, the Constitution provided a limited role for the federal government. Most Founders believed that all functions not expressly specified as federal belonged to the states - and that all power ultimately rested with the people.

In 1789, the budget of the federal government represented just two percent of our nation's economy. It now represents over 20 percent and is headed to exceed 30 percent and rising unless we reform existing entitlement programs (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) and put our fiscal house in order.

Today, the scope of the federal government bears little resemblance to the Founders' original intents, and neither do its functions.
While hard to believe, every major responsibility designated for the federal government in the Constitution are contained in the 38 percent of the budget deemed "discretionary spending". These responsibilities include national defense, homeland security, foreign policy, education, the federal judiciary, treasury functions, the postal service, the White House and Congress. As entitlement programs continue to grow on autopilot, the portion of the budget available for these essential government functions will come under increasing pressure.

Mandatory spending, which includes entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security and interest on the federal debt, now represents 62 percent of the budget and is growing. This part of federal spending, especially the health care portion, constitutes our nation's greatest fiscal challenge. In fact, absent comprehensive and prudent health care reforms, escalating health care costs have the potential to bankrupt America.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already represented 42 percent of the budget in 2007 and that was before any "baby boomers" had retired. Social Security and Medicare alone were underfunded by over $41 trillion dollars as of September 2007, or $136,000 per American in today's dollars. This number continues to grow by at least $2 trillion or $6,600 per American every year. To put things in perspective, current policies imply that total individual taxes would have to more than double from today's levels in order for the federal government to deliver on its promises and pay its bills in the future.

We must wake up, face facts and the stark realization that if we don't put our fiscal house in order, our collective future may not be as bright as our past. Our next President must display the candor and leadership necessary to make tough choices sooner rather than later.

Both major Presidential candidates should make addressing these issues a priority if they expect to help lead us out of our current $53 trillion federal fiscal hole. Specifically, they should commit to:

1) make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity a priority
2) not take anything off the table, including changing entitlement programs or increasing taxes
3) work on a bi-partisan basis to seek sensible, fair and sustainable solutions
4) use the "bully pulpit" to speak the truth to the American people about the need for action and the consequences of inaction
5) support the creation of a capable, credible and bi-partisan commission to make a range of budget, Social Security, tax and health care reform proposals to the next Congress for an up or down vote not allowing for amendments (similar to the Base Re-alignment and Closure Commission process).

We need a strong President who is willing to sacrifice easy short-term political wins for the long-term health of our country and well-being of American families. However, the ultimate responsibility for what goes on in Washington lies with the American people. "We the People" must do our part to hold our elected officials accountable to ensure that our collective future is better than our past, and that the United States of America is the first republic to stand the test of time.

When Flexfuel first became popular with the GM slogan "Live Green, Go Yellow" I was somewhat skeptical, but also encouraged by actual steps being taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As time has progressed, I have seen how horribly wrong this is for our country.

My vehicle accepts E85, but I was skeptical, because when I got my truck - A 2007 Dodge Ram 4x4 - E85 was more expensive than unleaded gasoline. On top of that, E85 stations were few and far between. Fast forward to today, and gas prices are over four dollars per gallon as everyone knows. E85 stations are still few and far between, but are slowly gaining ground as the Flexfuel vehicles gain market share. I noticed that the station was selling gas for $4.09 and E85 for $3.59, so at a fifty cent savings, I thought I'd try it for one tank and if it performed adequately, then I would look for it more frequently.

I keep a good eye on my truck's mileage and know that I get roughly 17 miles per gallon - which is on par with that of the government tests. My E85 experiment was just under that of the government tests, with the tests at 12 miles per gallon, and my experiment at 11 miles per gallon - which at only one tank, I can't really guarantee is that accurate, but it is close enough to the government estimates for my purposes.

Doing some simple math, my 26 gallon tank, at $4.09 costs around $106 to fill up. E85, at $3.59 costs around $93. However when taking into account the mileage for each, I get an additional 150 miles or so per tank by using unleaded. Making this up would cost me nearly fifty dollars, which puts me worse off than saving thirteen on my initial fill up.

The problems of E85 are many, but farmers and auto-makers are shoving it down our throats because of the "green" bandwagon and the government subsidies. The funny thing however is that ethanol isn't really green if you take into consideration the production of it from start to finish. The corn being used for ethanol must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers - all of which are fuel-using activities. All in all, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuels - oil and natural gas - to produce one gallon of ethanol.

We haven't even touched on the effect this is having on food prices either. As farmers switch from their current crops to get the subsidies from corn, the prices of food have risen due to a smaller supply. Take into consideration that if every plot of corn in America was used for ethanol, it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by a mere 10-12 percent. When you also consider that it takes 450 pounds of corn - enough to feed one person for a year - to fill up an SUV with E85, the "benefits" just aren't worth it.

America needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, but we need to take the appropriate steps to make this happen. Forcing ethanol down our throats will not magically make it the best alternative. If ethanol was truly the answer, the government would not be imposing a 54 cent tariff on Brazilian ethanol - which is derived from sugarcane, rather than corn, and is cleaner and more energy efficient. This is rather another case of lobbyists using their clout to get politicans to do their bidding.

A much better alternative in my mind is that of Coal Gasification. This idea of turning coal into gasoline was originally considered to be much too expensive - but that was when the price of a barrel of oil was around $20. It costs between forty and fifty dollars per barrel for Coal Gasification - which is a heck of a lot better than the $130 we are paying now for oil. Not only is Coal Gasification cheaper per barrel than that of foreign oil, but it is already being used exclusively by our military. If this option is good enough for our military, then it is good enough for the American people. Here's hoping that the politicians will make the correct decisions as the energy crisis continues, rather than throwing money at failed experiments.