Connect with us

Opinion

My gas guzzling, CO2 spewing car is the least penalized and taxed option, even with the carbon tax.

Published

3 minute read

I am looking at last month’s bills and was surprised at a few items.
First did you know that last month the average temperature was 10 degrees cooler than the same time a year earlier?
Looking at my home heating bill, I pay different rates at different times, I used in total, 30 gigajoules of energy (29.92), 10gj (10.1)at 1.99 and 20gj(19.82) at 3.18. For a total of $83.13 in natural gas.
The carbon levy is huge, don’t get me wrong, at $45.39 or 54.6% of the cost of gas, but that is only the beginning.
Administration fees-$7.62, Rider Z-$2.55, Rate Rider-$28.98, Municipal Franchise Fee paid to Red Deer-$27.27, GST-$12.31, Delivery charge- $51.35 for a total of $175.47 in extra fees.
So my $83.13 in natural gas to heat my home during a cold period cost me $258.60 in total.
So for every dollar in natural gas I use it cost an additional $2.11 in fees.
So I pulled out my electricity bill. I used 654 kilowatt hours of electricity or $43.78 in energy.
I do not see a carbon levy on my bill and yet we still burn non-renewable resources like natural gas and coal to provide electricity, do we not?
I do see an Administration Charge- $7.24, Distribution Charge- $20.84, Transmission Charge-$26.03, Balancing Pool Allocation- $2.07, Rate Rider Credit of $3.07, Local access fee paid to Red Deer of $6.22 for a total of $103.11.
So for every dollar in electricity I use it cost an additional $1.36 in fees.
So in one cold month I used $126.91 in electricity and natural gas to run my house which I do believe is a necessity, but it cost $361.71 in total for all the hands in the pie.
My fuel bill for my vehicle, because it was cold and I was lazy came to $169.35 for the same period and of that I think $7.50 was for the carbon tax. $23.70 went to Federal taxes, $34.50 went to Provincial taxes. I am approximating because it isn’t broken down on my bills. So for every dollar in fuel I use in my vehicle it cost an extra $0.53 extra in fees. Throw in the costs of delivery and marketing fees of $0.37 and gas still comes to $1.90 which is less than $2.00.
A dollar worth of natural gas cost $3.11, a dollar worth of electricity cost $2.36 while a dollar worth of fuel cost $1.90.
So the cleaner the fuel the more expensive in fees it is. A car running on natural gas incurs the greatest cost in extra fees, an electric car, would incur less fees than natural gas but more than a car with an internal combustion engine.
So even with the Carbon Tax, my gas guzzling, CO2 spewing car is the least penalized in fees.
What is my incentive to go green? Another 5 cents on a litre of gas?

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

Published on

logo

By

Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are…trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage…about American political controversies…and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
Continue Reading

Business

“Magnitude cannot be overstated”: Minnesota aid scam may reach $9 billion

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Federal prosecutors say Minnesota’s exploding social-services fraud scandal may now rival nearly the entire economy of Somalia, with as much as $9 billion allegedly stolen from taxpayer-funded programs in what authorities describe as industrial-scale abuse that unfolded largely under the watch of Democrat Gov. Tim Walz. The staggering new estimate is almost nine times higher than the roughly $1 billion figure previously suspected and amounts to about half of the $18 billion in federal funds routed through Minnesota-run social-services programs since 2018, according to prosecutors. “The magnitude cannot be overstated,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson said Thursday, stressing that investigators are still uncovering massive schemes. “This is not a handful of bad actors. It’s staggering, industrial-scale fraud. Every day we look under a rock and find another $50 million fraud operation.”

Authorities say the alleged theft went far beyond routine overbilling. Dozens of defendants — the vast majority tied to Minnesota’s Somali community — are accused of creating sham businesses and nonprofits that claimed to provide housing assistance, food aid, or health-care services that never existed, then billing state programs backed by federal dollars. Thompson said the opportunity became so lucrative it attracted what he called “fraud tourism,” with out-of-state operators traveling to Minnesota to cash in. Charges announced Thursday against six more people bring the total number of defendants to 92.

Among the newly charged are Anthony Waddell Jefferson, 37, and Lester Brown, 53, who prosecutors say traveled from Philadelphia to Minnesota after spotting what they believed was easy money in the state’s housing assistance system. The pair allegedly embedded themselves in shelters and affordable-housing networks to pose as legitimate providers, then recruited relatives and associates to fabricate client notes. Prosecutors say they submitted about $3.5 million in false claims to the state’s Housing Stability Services Program for roughly 230 supposed clients.

Other cases show how deeply the alleged fraud penetrated Minnesota’s health-care programs. Abdinajib Hassan Yussuf, 27, is accused of setting up a bogus autism therapy nonprofit that paid parents to enroll children regardless of diagnosis, then billed the state for services never delivered, netting roughly $6 million. Another defendant, Asha Farhan Hassan, 28, allegedly participated in a separate autism scheme that generated $14 million in fraudulent reimbursements, while also pocketing nearly $500,000 through the notorious Feeding Our Future food-aid scandal. “Roughly two dozen Feeding Our Future defendants were getting money from autism clinics,” Thompson said. “That’s how we learned about the autism fraud.”

The broader scandal began to unravel in 2022 when Feeding Our Future collapsed under federal investigation, but prosecutors say only in recent months has the true scope of the alleged theft come into focus. Investigators allege large sums were wired overseas or spent on luxury vehicles and other high-end purchases. The revelations have fueled political fallout in Minnesota and prompted renewed federal scrutiny of immigration-linked fraud as well as criticism of state oversight failures. Walz, who is seeking re-election in 2026 after serving as Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024, defended his administration Thursday, saying, “We will not tolerate fraud, and we will continue to work with federal partners to ensure fraud is stopped and fraudsters are caught.” Prosecutors, however, made clear the investigation is far from finished — and warned the final tally could climb even higher.

Continue Reading

Trending

X