Probably the most frightening thing about the U.S. government is that, when the wheels come entirely off, you know that means the ride is just beginning.

This is evidenced in part by economic stimulus checks with money that should have been left in the economy in the first place (and the rest of it borrowed from China), calls for new taxes that will help us save some money on gas (huh?), and free luxury cars for members of the House of Representatives so they can make their constituents look good (I'll get to that in a minute). If the government keeps caring about us so much, we'll all starve to death – faster if they keep insisting that we burn our food for fuel.

Many Americans, with the definite exception of Wesley Snipes, have received or are going to receive an "economic stimulus check" from the IRS. If the government was genuinely concerned with economic stimulus, they wouldn't take the money in the first place, would they?

You can't help but admire the tactic, though. Instead of admitting that just leaving the money at the source via lower taxes is the best way to stimulate the economy, both political parties create the illusion that the government handing out money is a primary stimulator of the economy. Too many people believe it.

So of course it follows that only high taxes can put the government in a position to stimulate the economy. I mean, if the government doesn't have all the money, how can they give it back so we can grow our economy?

The stimulus timing was impeccable, because as it turns out we'll need the extra cash to pay for the increase in gas prices once the government gets through trying to make it cheaper. There are now calls for another "windfall profits tax." Here's how bad an idea a windfall profits tax is: Jimmy Carter thinks it's a good idea.

This is round two of the windfall profits tax discussion. Round one was in November 2005, when the U.S. Senate hosted many oil industry execs and vociferously grilled them over obscene profits. It was comical at best. A political body, headed up in part by the Massachusetts duet of Kennedy and Kerry – respectively, a former admiral in the Navy whose family made a good deal of their fortune running rum during prohibition, and a gigolo – sat in judgment of what constitutes profiteering.

(Column continues below)

At those hearings, California Sen. Barbara Boxer was so up in arms that you'd have thought the oil execs were trying to talk somebody out of a late-term abortion. Robert Byrd was shocked because he hadn't squared off with such greedy white men since the time he was in arrears on his Klan dues. Hillary Clinton, who magically turned a couple of Chuck E. Cheese game tokens into more than $100,000 trading cattle futures and got $8 million for a book somebody else wrote, also shook her head in disgust at these money-grubbing petrol peddlers.

Why not just seek ways for the U.S. to become energy independent? Maybe the answer has something to do with the fact that you and I are paying for some of our politicians' cars, insurance and, most importantly, gasoline.

WCBS broadcast a story on a little-known perk that allows members of the House of Representatives to lease a car, with no limit as to price, which includes gas, registration and insurance all paid for by taxpayers. WCBS reported that New York Rep. Gregory Meeks' Lexus lease soaks taxpayers to the tune of almost a cool grand a month.

But the part of the story that really delves into the devious mind of the politician, and reveals why politicians will never be interested in "saving" any money, came courtesy of New York Rep. Charles Rangel.

Get this – Rangel actually told a reporter, with a spin worthy of the top criminal defense lawyers in the land, that he spends $777 of taxpayer money a month for his Cadillac DeVille because driving a cheaper car would be a sign of disrespect to his constituents. Wow. That takes cojones the size of … well, Charles Rangel's cojones.

These are the kind of people who are charged with "fixing" all our problems, including high gas prices and how to stimulate the economy.

Charles Rangel demonstrated what "respect" means to a politician, so I'm now pledging to only vote for a candidate who promises to disrespect me a lot more – if there are any.