Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Stacking the deck

The Left badly needs a new electorate. And they’ve been working hard as they can to get themselves one.

Why do we have an immigration system that favors countries on fire vs countries not on fire?

I’ve spoken to a British immigration lawyer who told me how hard it is for Brits to move to this country. If you have something to contribute to this country, stay out. If you’re going to be on welfare for the next three generations, go to the head of the line.

The left would never admit that it’s policy, but it’s policy.

It’s not purely partisan. That hypothetical Norwegian immigrant is very far from a sure GOP vote. It’s quite possible that a Norwegian immigrant is as statistically likely to vote Dem as a Haitian immigrant. And may even be more professionally left-wing.

But that’s not the only issue.

The left doesn’t just want likely voters that lean their way. Many welfare immigrants will never bother to get citizenship and have poor voter turnout rates. But they utilize as much of the system as possible. And that’s where the real money is.

Remember, elections come and go, but the bureaucracy endures. 

Yep—and dependency on Uncle Sugartit is forever. But it really is about more than just stuffing more Wards ‘O The State into the maw of the Machine:

The Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund circulated a memo on Monday calling illegal immigrants brought here at a young age — so-called “Dreamers” — a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

The memo, co-authored by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, was sent around to allies calling on Democrats to “refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them.”

Their ideology is stagnant, their policies stale, their programs the same old reliable failure they’ve always been; Trump’s remarkable ascension, stunning as it was to the business-as-usual DC remoras, would seem to demonstrate that enough voters now realize it to send them packing.

Admittedly, cobbling together a new electorate isn’t the entire Democrat Socialist motive for bringing in hordes of unskilled, illiterate, no more than half-bright immigrants that nobody really wants or needs, just as Daniel argues. But it’s certainly an important part of it—and if you don’t think so, just ask those among them like Palmieri who are at least smart enough to see the writing on the wall. Ultimately, though, their problem is even bigger, as Limbaugh glancingly mentioned today during a discussion of the Trump tax cuts:

The increase in your standard of living this year is money that the government did not get because the Republicans cut your taxes. And that’s it in a nutshell. And this is something, again, not one Democrat voted for. This is something that pretty much every member of the Democrat leadership lied about. This is something that no Democrat, not only didn’t vote for, but probably doesn’t support. This is a threat to Democrats! Rising economic stability, rising standards of living, less dependence on government?

Those are not good things. As I said yesterday, the Democrat Party is the one political party that profits from poverty, the one political party that attempts to grow and enrich itself with poverty. The Democrat Party is the Democrat Party that stakes its future on a constant underclass in poverty. Yet they claim they’re for the little guy.

And this right here—their cynical reliance on widespread, intractable poverty as a mechanism for gaining and maintaining power, their despicable pimping of helplessness and hopelessness—is why they’re almost certainly doomed. As I’ve said right along, they have revealed themselves as being unalterably, implacably opposed to the very idea of Making America Great Again. How does any party so twisted and perverse transform itself into something most normal Americans would ever want to vote for—especially at the moment those Americans are experiencing real, practical benefit from an America throwing off its Democrat-forged shackles and slowly but steadily rising to its feet once more?

Trump is undeniably getting results, and Americans are seeing the fruits of his labor in their own wallets, which means more to them than just about anything else, I’d bet. No, he hasn’t made good on every last promise he made as of yet, sure enough, and there’s nothing wrong with holding his feet to the fire when he looks like needing it. But the bottom line is this: can anybody out there remember a President that achieved so much of such profound benefit to the nation so quickly—in his first year alone? I’ve been paying attention to this stuff for a long time now, and I sure can’t.

Better still, every move Trump makes in implementing the MAGA agenda amounts to pounding another nail into the Democrat-Socialist coffin—or tossing another golden shovel-full onto their grave, more like. Which, burying them once and for all will likely prove to be the biggest step towards truly making America great again we could ever take, all by itself.

Best of all? Honestly, I cannot for the life of me see a single damned thing they can do about it. After all, they dug that hole themselves, and were so pleased by the excellence of their work that they went and just jumped right on in. Their GOPe handmaidens jumped in with them, following their lead as they always have. All we needed was to find a guy unafraid to take up the shovel himself and start filling in on top of the damned fools.

And so we did.

The Democrat Socialists badly need Trump to be every bit as stupid as they’ve assumed he was all along to bail them out via an immigration botch. He has shown absolutely no evidence to date of that being the case—NONE. Quite the opposite, actually. They now find themselves in the worst position imaginable: the only one who can save them from Trump is…Trump.

Yep, we’re gonna need those Midwestern farmers to grow us a HELL of a lot more corn for popping before all is said and done, I figure.

Share

Weakness and defeat

Who woulda ever thunk their odor could be so pleasant?

We wouldn’t take Pelosi seriously, because it’s impossible to truly do so. After all, she’s completely crazy and it’s obvious to anyone who bothers to observe both the gibberish emanating from her lips and the unstable body language surrounding it. Except that the unhinged sentiments she offered as a reaction to the passage of a bill which will provide a tax cut to 80 percent of the American public aren’t just hers. They belong to the entire Democratic Party.

Chuck Schumer, upon the bill’s passage, declared that it will be “an anchor to the ankles of every Republican” in next year’s midterm elections.

Oh, OK, Chuck.

Smell that? It smells like desperation and weakness, doesn’t it? It also smells like impending defeat. Pelosi and Schumer can smell it, regardless of the lies they tell themselves and their supporters.

Schumer’s prognostication isn’t off to a very good start. On the very day the bill reached final passage, AT&T announced it was giving 200,000 of its employees $1,000 bonuses and making $1 billion in capital investment. Likewise, Boeing announced it would let loose $300 million in investments — $100 million in corporate philanthropy, $100 million in increased training for its workers and another $100 million in facilities investment — as a direct result of the tax reform plan.

“On behalf of all our stakeholders, we applaud and thank Congress and the administration for their leadership in seizing this opportunity to unleash economic energy in the United States,” said Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg. “It’s the single most important thing we can do to drive innovation, support quality jobs and accelerate capital investment in our country.”

That’s one hell of an anchor, eh Chuck?

But wait, there’s more. Also Wednesday was Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bancorp’s announcement that some 13,500 employees would be receiving $1,000 bonuses and all bank employees would be moving to a minimum wage of $15 per hour — an indication that Trump and the Republicans in Congress appear more effective in achieving a $15 minimum wage than the Democrats who bloviated about passing a law to that effect have ever managed. That’s a similar announcement to the one Wells Fargo made, also raising the company minimum wage to $15 and further pledging $400 million in increased philanthropy. And not to be outdone, Comcast, which is in merger talks with AT&T, is now saying they’re going to make $50 billion in infrastructure investments while also giving some 100,000 non-executive employees $1,000 bonuses.

No political capital in any of that, right Chuck?

The one major concern about the effects of the tax reform plan for Republicans might be that it could spell the end of Schumer and Pelosi as the Democrats’ leaders in the Senate and House, respectively, and the Democrats might replace them with someone sane and competent.

No worries. I mean, where the hell is anybody gonna find sanity and competence among the Democrat Socialists? Fauxcahontas? Bernie? Wasserman-Schvantz? Weiner? The seemingly endless Perv Parade of Democrat-Socialist gropers, grabbers, weenie-waggers, public pud-pullers, and rapists? Hillary!™, for Christ’s sake? Look all you care to, but it just ain’t there.

Nope, STILL not tired of all the winning yet. After the long, bitter years of Republicrat collusion, I find it intoxicating, and highly addictive.

Share

Moonbat meltdown

Wow, these freaks REALLY hate the idea of letting you hold onto a bit more of your money than you did before, don’t they?



Ace has other examples of a psychotic break caused by tax cuts. This one would have to be my favorite, though:

About 10,000 Americans will die every year from lack of health coverage if the tax reform bill goes through as proposed, Larry Summers, former Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and White House economic advisor under Barack Obama, said Monday.

Yeah, these are people who can be reasoned with, can be equably and honestly debated, are open to equitable compromise, and who might occasionally have a proposal worth considering. Funny, too, how every single thing they don’t like is going to cause quadrillions(!!!!) of deaths, but they have never yet acknowledged the hundred million or so ACTUALLY killed by their preferred system of government—preferring instead to make ludicrous fools of themselves denying it, or more despicably, sidestepping or minimizing it.

Just imagine the nightmarish ordeal of trying to explain to them the Ground Zero principle that it ain’t the government’s money to begin with if you really want to send some serious chills up your spine. And then tell me again all about how it’s either desirable or possible for us to all live peaceably within the same borders, just to double down on pointless futility.

“Unity”? Umm, thanks and all, but, well…NO.

Peripherally related update! Peripherally, yeah, but important enough to mention here.

With a bare 52-48 GOP Senate majority, and with Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee determined to even a personal score with President Trump, the Senate version of the bill that passed the House almost went down to defeat. But the Republicans held. Susan Collins of Maine fought gamely to preserve the deduction for property taxes, and she stuck with the team. Ron Johnson got what he needed. Rand Paul managed to overcome his broken-ribs situation. For a day, Jeff Flake and John McCain set aside their personal issues with President Trump.

And — incredibly importantly — it is critical for Alabama voters to grasp that not one single solitary Democrat broke ranks from Chuck Schumer to vote for the tax cut.

The Democrats cynically run ostensibly moderate-seeming candidates in Republican states like Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia. Like Doug Jones who is opposing Roy Moore in Alabama, those “moderates” falsely assure voters that they are not in Chuck Schumer’s pocket, are independent thinkers, and will not betray their conservative constituents if elected and sent to Washington. Yet, without exception, they all are brazen liars. The vote on the Senate tax bill proves the lie. When push comes to shove, when every last vote counts, Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), John Tester (D-MT), and Joe Manchin (D-WV) were in Chuck Schumer’s pocket. Same with Bill Nelson (D-FL), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Not one voted for tax cuts. That is where Doug Jones will be. As the President has warned, Jones would be bad on crime, bad on defense, bad on the border, bad on judges, bad on everything. It would be like Alabama giving one of its two United States Senate seats to New York or California.

Heh. No way can I imagine THAT failing to motivate Alabamians to make sure Moore wins.

Share

“The income tax system cannot be fixed. It must be destroyed”

I don’t know if “fix” is the right word anyway. It’s working as intended. It’s just that it has no place in any legitimate Constitutional government, is a wholly corrupt abomination, and is a tyrannical affront to the ideals of the Founders, that’s all.

The income tax is applied in a deceptive manner, in that by withholding taxes from paychecks, it becomes effectively invisible to the lower-level wage-earner once he gets over the initial shock of seeing his first paycheck arriving at far fewer dollars than he had counted on.

Not coincidence. Not accident. Not happenstance. On purpose.

The need to abolish the income tax permanently has become glaringly apparent. Congress has become paralyzed trying to reform a system that is beyond broken. Any fix in any one part of the tax code causes it to break somewhere else. It is a system of exemptions for favored portions of the population, who are in effect subsidized unfairly by those less favored.

The tax code has created the insane idea, ingrained into those who make laws, that your money is not really yours at all, but rather, it belongs to the government. Government takes what it wants, gorging itself in wasteful profligacy, and then doles what is left of it back to you, as if it were doing you a favor.

Worse yet, tax laws are used (in effect) to buy votes. Politicians adjust the tax laws to help their campaign donors, reducing their taxes at your expense. They then get re-elected to repeat the process.

Let’s just all repeat my mantra together now, shall we? Not coincidence. Not accident. Not happenstance. On purpose. Every bit of it.

Rough justice update! Sic simper tyrannis.

Former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner told a federal court last week that members of her family, including “young children,” face death threats and a real risk of physical harm if her explanation of the tea party targeting scandal becomes public.

Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents in court Thursday saying tapes and transcripts of depositions they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to retaliate.

“Whenever Mss. Lerner and Paz have been in the media spotlight, they have faced death threats and harassment,” attorneys for the two women argued.

“Not a smidgeon of corruption,” eh, Barky? I’ll toss in another good old quote: “When the people fear government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty.” With that truism in mind, I can’t restrict my reaction to mere indifference to Lerner’s plight, but find it positively encouraging. It says good things about the possibility of the political pendulum swinging back in the right direction, if nothing else.

Despite having gotten death threats before now as claimed above, I very much doubt her fear of attempted physical assault or murder is really justified by any real chance of its actually happening. She’s not likely to suffer anything but occasional inconvenience and discomfort for her criminal efforts to stifle dissent, to disenfranchise and harass people for daring to harbor views unapproved by the ruling Deep State/Progressivist cabal—people who mistakenly expected the First Amendment to apply to them, or to have any meaning at all.

She and every other petty despot embedded in every dark corner of the Deep State ought to be fearful, or at least cognizant of a very real risk concomitant with any depredation or transgression against the rights of the people they supposedly “serve.” Swift and severe retribution against them by an outraged populace would amount to no more than justice being served at last, and ought to be expected rather than shocking or rare. Complacent, fatalistic acceptance of such depredations is a large part of why we’re in the mess we’re in.

Far from receiving any just punishment at all, though, Lerner didn’t even lose her fucking pension, and was allowed to retire in peace after first lying about the targeting and harassment; then making a pre-emptive statement of “confession” calculated to shield her from justice for her inexcusable cooperation in subverting democracy and flouting the core principles of the Republic; then pleading the Fifth, thereby piling outrage upon outrage by seeking the protection of the very Constitution she had willfully and knowingly trampled underfoot. She was found to be in contempt of Congress, which matter was quickly and quietly dropped with no consequence to her. Incredibly, she even collected over a hundred thousand dollars in bonuses while presiding over banana-republic style suppression of the right to express dissent.

Then stir this into the noxious stew:

On June 13, 2014, the IRS first stated that it lost Ms. Lerner’s emails from 2009 to 2011.

The IRS said hard drives and backups are destroyed for six other IRS employees too. The IRS spent $10 million unsuccessfully trying to recover them, but much later, the Inspector General found them, noting that IRS IT professionals said no one ever asked for them. It is still possible Ms. Lerner could be queried over the hearings revealing 32,000 more emails, and possible criminal activity.

But on his last day in office, U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen concluded that Ms. Lerner’s statement was not a waiver of her constitutional right against self-incrimination. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz complained that, “Mr. Machen attempted to absolve Ms. Lerner of her actions by substituting his judgment for that of the full House of Representatives. It is unclear whether the Administration directed Mr. Machen not to prosecute Lois Lerner, or whether he was motivated by an ideological kinship with IRS’s leadership.”

Ms. Lerner will probably not face any further action. 

“Not a smidgeon of corruption”? My God, the whole thing was a pluperfect example of nothing BUT pure corruption, complete corruption, from start to finish and top to bottom. Obama’s preposterous assertion was never anything but laughable on its face, and was itself an example of his own sense of invulnerability, and his smug contempt for not just the rule of law but the American public itself.

Make no mistake: the weaponization of the IRS by the Obama junta and its deployment to harass people guilty of nothing whatsoever was a crime—a despicable one, a heinous one, a legally-actionable one, and one that should never have been dismissed, denied, excused, or accepted by any real American. It was a particularly odious abuse of power perpetrated by the most feared agency in the federal government—an agency long drunk on its own near-limitless power, capable of destroying lives permanently for the most minor of infractions with total impunity. It can—it has—wiped out the fruits of a lifetime’s work, struggle, and sacrifice over a trifling error of its own commission. It is a monstrous bureaucracy unfettered by meaningful oversight or restraint. It’s difficult to imagine anything more un-American.

These crimes cry to the heavens for redress. And we’re never going to get it.

In a more righteous era, with a government restrained by a healthy and proper reluctance to run roughshod over the rights of its people, enforced by the dauntless self-respect and vigilance of those people, she’d have been swinging by her neck from a DC lamppost long ago, just as soon as she openly confessed to her crime. But then, as the bumper sticker says: The Founders would have been shooting by now.

Lerner fears for her life? Good. She deserves a whole hell of a lot worse than that in payment for her despicable, immoral, and unforgivable suppression of the most fundamental rights of wholly innocent Americans. That she has the unbelievable audacity, the pure gall, to whine about her situation now just makes her even more contemptible. She is a vile worm; a blight on the landscape, a miserable excrescence without character, courage, virtue, or any other redeeming quality. Indeed, she’s far worse than that: she and her cohorts are dangerous, and are exactly what the Founders warned us against.

And once again, make no mistake: the IRS and every other Federal agency and department is staffed full to brimming with people just like her. Yes, there are exceptions. But she was by no means singular or extraordinary; she is the rule, the norm, and they’re all there still, beavering away in obscurity, eating away at our national foundation every minute of their busy workday.

Taken together, they in their thousands constitute a truly daunting problem, one that may well be insuperable. But the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and Lois Lerner is an air-tight argument for doing away with the nest of vipers that is the IRS all by herself.

Share

Soak the rich!

Kill the goose that lays those pretty golden eggs.

HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH)–Connecticut’s state budget woes are compounding with collections from the state income tax collapsing, despite two high-end tax hikes in the past six years.

It means the current budget year, which ends in just two months, is now seriously in the red and next year’s deficit has ballooned to $2.2 billion.

It’s happening because the state of Connecticut depends too much on its wealthy residents, and wealthy residents are leaving, and the ones that are staying are making less, or are not taking their profits from the stock market until they see what happens in Washington.

Why, that’s just wrong, those rich bastards. HOW DARE THEY?!? Obviously, what Connecticut needs to do is just pass a law preventing anybody from leaving. That ought to fix things nicely.

Commie schmucks.

Whether it’s Venezuela or Connecticut, the end stages of socialism are never pretty. But somehow, they always ends up looking pretty much the same.

Share

Right-wing anarcho-terrorist calls for destroying everything

Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.

Some of my fellow Republican candidates for the presidency have proposed plans to fix the tax system. These proposals are a step in the right direction, but the tax code has grown so corrupt, complicated, intrusive and antigrowth that I’ve concluded the system isn’t fixable.

So on Thursday I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut that would repeal the entire IRS tax code—more than 70,000 pages—and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of 14.5% on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.”

We are already at least $2 trillion behind where we should be with a normal recovery; the growth gap widens every month. Even Mr. Obama’s economic advisers tell him that the U.S. corporate tax code, which has the highest rates in the world (35%), is an economic drag. When an iconic American company like Burger King wants to renounce its citizenship for Canada because that country’s tax rates are so much lower, there’s a fundamental problem.

Another increasingly obvious danger of our current tax code is the empowerment of a rogue agency, the IRS, to examine the most private financial and lifestyle information of every American citizen. We now know that the IRS, through political hacks like former IRS official Lois Lerner, routinely abused its auditing power to build an enemies list and harass anyone who might be adversarial to President Obama’s policies. A convoluted tax code enables these corrupt tactics.

My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over.

It’s a beautiful dream he has, all right, but it’s never going to happen without a major, probably violent, upheaval aimed not just at the IRS but at the entire bloated, pustulent edifice of Mordor on the Potomac. Even Paul kinda-sorta admits it, in a roundabout way:

The challenge to this plan will be to overcome special-interest groups in Washington who will muster all of their political muscle to save corporate welfare.

Which would include nearly every elected official; every firmly entrenched bureaucrat fearful that his own misbegotten and contra-Constitutional agency would be next on the headsman’s chopping block; every two-bit grifter sucking voraciously at the public teat who would suddenly be forced to find useful work; every FederalGovCo employee who would have to do the same; every lobbyist who ditto; every one of the thousands upon thousands of IRS vampires who ditto; every crony-fascist corporate welfare recipient, to include each and every Fortune 500 company and their myriad subdivisions; all the accountants and tax lawyers Paul mentions elsewhere in the piece; all the Establishment Media scum suckers and welfare parasites for whom Big Government is the answer to their indolent prayers; all the…well, you get the picture.

The IRS specifically and Big Government generally are of a piece in at least one way: everyone loves to complain about them from time to time, without any intention or will whatsoever to do the first damned thing about them. A truly free, independent, and self-respecting people would never have countenanced the rise and metastisization of a profane monstrosity like the IRS–or the EPA, TSA, DHS, NSA, ATF, et al–in the first place. Americans are no longer any of those things. Hats off to Rand for seizing on at least one of the agencies of our decline and despair and waving it around in our faces; it’s an endeavor fraught with great personal risk, as anyone who’s ever been targeted by the IRS knows full well. But his laudable effort will come to naught…which is way worse than just sad.

Share

Seen enough yet?

I sure have.

Every IT-savvy commenter and coblogger was saying that all of these emails are periodically backed up to tapes which are always available.

The IRS kept claiming they weren’t. They claimed they were lost, or missing, or “recycled” every six months.

People not in the IRS kept saying “Bullshit, the point of the tapes is to keep them forever.”

So yes. This new investigator, Mr. Camus, set out to find the tapes which the IRS head swore under oath did not exist and he found them. In two weeks.

This suggests the very real policy that multiple hands at the IRS deliberately lied to Congress in order to end Congress’ search for the tapes, and that they further did not do the minimum due diligence required by law in cooperating with a federal subpoena: As Mr. Camus states, when he went to the storage facility in West Virginia, which is “exactly where you’d expect [the tapes] to be,” the IT people there found them immediately, and furthermore said that no one had ever before asked for the tapes.

Oh, I wouldn’t exactly count on that. After all, these are employees of an out-of-control bureaucracy in an illegitimate government–they lie as a matter of course, without the slightest fear of repercussion or reprisal. Thus:

I’m happy that we can pretend for a while there’s incriminating evidence on them that will finally allow for a prosecution of Lois Lerner and anyone else involved in using the IRS for thuggery.

Now we can put this to bed, right?

But I don’t believe a word of it.

The idea that the guys directly in charge of these suddenly found backups elected to say nothing to anyone, and waited for someone to come ask for them, like Cinderella waiting for prince Charming to show up and put the glass slipper on, is bunk. The only way that could have happened is if the IT people in at least one group have gotten up every morning for at least a year, showered, shaved, dressed, and showed up at work where they stuck their heads in buckets of mud for the entire day. It only could happen if they live in Plato’s cave when they go home at night.

It must be sweet in that department that didn’t start going over what they had for backups from day 1 when it was revealed that the IRS lost the backups. It must be awesome to work for a boss who didn’t come down and say, “so, what’s up with these backups! Because we’re being made to look pretty damned foolish! Do we have that stuff or not! I want to know ASAP because I expect to be on a bridge call by 12:00 where everyone, the Pope included, is going to be asking that question.”

But the call never came? So they just went back to their daily business? With all the news going on about missing backups? They didn’t know who to tell maybe? So they just told no one?

Anyone with half a brain, who’s had half an ounce of responsibility knows that somewhere someone was going to answer for those missing backups. And it behooves the guys who are supposed to have them, to be able to answer that they in fact do have them, if all it takes is for them to go look.

And you can bet your sweet bippy they went and looked. And they pro-actively told someone above them.

Yet we’re supposed to believe they said nothing.

To anyone.

For over a year.

Right.

Alan goes on to suggest that the situation involves an even more nefarious motive for the coverup than some of us might wish to believe, which presents us with a further question: are they that smart? You bet they are…for certain values of “smart.” Bear in mind what I’ve said all along about our Emperor, His Royal Splendiferousness Barrack Hussein Abdul Mohammed Shitstain: cunning and devious ain’t necessarily the same thing as smart.

The IRS is easily the most powerful (and most feared, with very good reason) agency of a rogue, contra-Constitutional government, and it–along with said illegitimate government, which wields it like a cudgel to rob and cow its subjects–is completely out of control. A truly free and self-respecting people would not for a moment countenance such an abominable agency’s continued existence; a truly legitimate national authority reliant on the consent of the governed wouldn’t need it. I can’t think of any plainer, more honest way of putting it than that. Which brings us to this:

Consider the evidence of enemy action thus far:

– The federal government is replacing the American voters with invaders.
– The executive branch has been materially in contempt of federal court for years.
– The federal government has commenced banning rifle cartridges.
– The regulatory state has transformed into an unaccountable, all powerful entity.
– The government has seized control of the only free information source.
– The executive branch has just co-opted the power of the purse from the legislative.
– The legislative branch has willfully and deliberately surrendered it’s authority.
– The federal government has seized control of the health care industry.
– The regulatory state has been weaponized to crush peaceful challenges to authority.
– The federal government has turned a massive spy apparatus upon the citizenry.
– The executive branch refuses to curb it’s abuses of power and criminal excesses.
– State sovereignty has been obliterated.
– The regulatory state has been fully captured by those it was to govern.
– The judicial branch has been stacked with rubber stamping ideologues.
– Unalienable rights under natural law have been materially breached.

Every possible peaceful avenue of redress has failed us. All attempts at civility met with spittle and derision. Each “compromise” answered only with churlish demands for “more.” The Rubicon has at last been crossed fellow patriots. No more compliance. No more acceptance. No more of our money and no more of our liberty. If they want our precious possessions now, they’ll have to earn them – at cost.

The government’s fools have finally rendered the law dead, just as they have rendered this nation dead. The old rules that bound us are now so much vapor and soot – so it has been openly decreed by our putative masters. But in casting off their – and our – obligations to law, they willingly and knowing surrender the protection it once afforded them. They no longer have license, they now lack mandate, and we no longer owe them fealty. The body of tyrants that was once our government is now entitled to only what treasure they can seize, what obedience they can force and what respect they can coerce with lash and blade.

There is a problem with tyranny blatantly declaring itself and starting to operate out in the open as such: it abnegates all pretense to legitimacy, abandons all claim to the loyalty of its subjects, and opens itself to resistance, insurrection, and sabotage as morally and legally justifiable* forms of dissent. Which only means that the tyrant is going to have to get busy redefining treason to include all those on his suddenly-expanded enemies list.

So nobody, but nobody, should be at all surprised that that’s exactly what the tyrant has done.

At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly. The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists. But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens.

And if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay. So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke. The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them. And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link. As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

That list is lengthy, and covers pretty much every living soul likely to be reading this post, including its author. I won’t transcribe it; chances are you all know who you are already, and what your would-be masters think of you and intend to do about you. But if you have any doubts about exactly what kind of country you now live in, whether it retains any plausible claim on your allegiance, or where your relationship to the liberal-fascist Superstate now stands, I urge you to go and have a look–and to face up to the ugly reality at last. Which is this: Constitution-revering, patriotic, real Americans not only no longer have representation in our national institutions; we no longer have a nation at all.

Conduct yourselves accordingly, folks.

*Timeless words, deathless principle: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Sound like anybody you know, perchance?

Share

Who they are, what they do

Tyrants. Thugs. Thieves.

For years, the Internal Revenue Service has been stealing taxpayer assets from small businesses — not for breaking tax law, but for making legitimate bank deposits under $10,000. It’s one form of the increasingly well-known practice called “civil asset forfeiture.”

The IRS has the power to seize small cash deposits under $10,000. These deposits seem suspicious because cash deposits over $10,000 trigger a bank report to authorities. Terrorists, drug dealers, and money launderers all make cash deposits under $10,000 to avoid triggering the bank report. The illicit practice is called “structuring.”

The problem is that many small businesses accept cash payments and make large deposits that happen to fall under $10,000.

Sadly, this attempt to crack down on terrorist funding is used by the IRS to abuse small businesses. In October, the New York Times reported on the story of Carole Hinders, a small business owner who had over $30,000 seized by the IRS. The IRS does not even need to charge someone with a crime to seize assets under an alleged structuring scheme.

Thankfully, a bipartisan bill has been introduced in Congress that would end the practice.

That’s all well and good and all, but what we ought to be talking about is ending the IRS–with a flat tax, FAIR tax, or whatever. Tells you all you need to know about Ruling Class collusion and the true nature of our government–and the compliant, docile, fatalistic nature of the populace at large, unfortunately–that almost nobody is.

Update! The Founders would have been shooting already. A long time ago, in truth.

An independent IRS monitor announced Monday it will block the release of roughly 400 more pages of documents related to unauthorized leaks of confidential taxpayer information to the White House.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) told the watchdog group Cause of Action it would be withholding nearly all of the 2,500 documents it located that were related to unauthorized IRS leaks to the White House. Earlier this month, TIGTA told Cause of Action it was withholding roughly 2,100 of the documents and said it would take an additional two weeks to review the rest.

TIGTA released 31 pages of documents on Monday to Cause of Action, 27 of which were already publicly available. Most were responses to letters from Republican senators.

As previously reported by the Washington Free Beacon, Cause of Action filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against TIGTA for the long-sought-after records after the agency refused to even acknowledge whether they existed or not.

A federal judge ruled in September that TIGTA could not hide the existence of its investigations into improper leaks. In response TIGTA identified 2,509 responsive documents to Cause of Action’s FOIA request but said it was barred by law from releasing them.

TIGTA has used a statute meant to shield confidential taxpayer information to block FOIA requests over the past several years that seek information on investigations into politically motivated IRS leaks by the Obama administration.

When the rulers arbitrarily exempt themselves from the laws governing their subjects it is the very definition of tyranny. If I was in the armed forces right now, I’d have some very serious questions to ponder over exactly what and who I was defending, I’ll say that much.

Share

“The facts are simple”

They certainly are. Unfortunately, they’re also uncomfortable, and lead to some pretty dark conclusions about what kind of country this is, which themselves lead to some very dark and scary places indeed.

The facts are simple. The IRS systematically targeted conservative and Tea Party groups after their activism proved decisive in the 2010 midterm elections—Obama’s famous “shellacking.” The effects of this targeting were widespread. Some Tea Party groups were neutered in the months before the 2012 presidential election.

Few of the explanations or justifications of this targeting provided by IRS leaders and Obama administration officials have held up. IRS officials at first denied that any targeting had taken place. That was false. They later claimed that the targeting had involved only low-level employees in the Cincinnati office. That was false. They argued that conservative groups weren’t singled out, that progressive groups were subject to the same level of scrutiny. That was false. They argued that the IRS has complied with all requests for information from Congress. That was false.

Three years ago, on June 3, 2011, Representative Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote to the IRS requesting all information—including emails and other communication—related to the alleged targeting of conservative groups. Ten days later, Lois Lerner, the woman at the center of the targeting, reported to the IT team at the IRSthat her hard drive had crashed. IRS leaders, questioned repeatedly about Lerner’s emails in subsequent congressional hearings, made no mention of the hard drive crash. Earlier this summer, IRS director John Koskinen disclosed that thousands of Lerner emails—including many of those sent to executive branch agencies—were missing because of the alleged computer problems. From her first appearance before a congressional committee, back in May 2013, Lerner has exercised her right against self-incrimination and refused to testify. 

These facts lead to one conclusion: Lois Lerner and other top IRS officials were desperate to keep information on the targeting of conservative groups from Congress.

It’s crucial to understand why. And that will require a special prosecutor. 

Ahh, not so fast there, Stephen. Andrew McCarthy explains the flaw in this bad idea:

Let’s say you had a president and attorney general who were regarded by even the opposition party as trustworthy.

Okay, you could just stop right there, really.

They could appoint a lawyer widely respected by both major parties as a pillar of rectitude and competence. Such an attorney’s reputation might convince the public to overlook the technicality that the lawyer would answer to the AG and, ultimately, to the president. But the attorney’s reputation on its own wouldn’t suffice. This “independent” counsel’s appointment would have to be accompanied by the president’s own very convincing demonstration that he regarded the investigation as a serious matter and was cooperating earnestly — in particular, by directing his subordinates, on pain of termination, to answer all questions and disclose all relevant evidence.

Now, let’s consider the Obama administration. President “I’m not interested in photo ops” is notoriously cynical and slippery — indeed, flat-out dishonest at times. His attorney general has already been held in contempt of Congress, owing to his penchant for providing misinformation. The president has publicly prejudged the IRS scandal as bereft of a “smidgeon” of corruption. The attorney general — notwithstanding the ethical canon that lawyers must avoid even the appearance of impropriety in the administration of justice — assigned this abuse-of-power probe to Barbara Bosserman, a heavy Obama and Democratic-party campaign donor.

Legitimacy is mostly a matter of trust. This president and this attorney general do not have the credibility to structure an independent-counsel investigation that sensible people would accept as a search for the truth. And never forget that they have stuck with the hopelessly compromised Ms. Bosserman for months — notwithstanding intense congressional criticism, reports that key witnesses have not been interviewed, and indications that relevant evidence has been destroyed with impunity. The suggestion that they might suddenly put the case in the hands of an impartial, impeccably credentialed former prosecutor with directions to go wherever the facts lead does not pass the laugh test.

No, it doesn’t. But it gets even worse from there, leading ultimately to this:

You can have political accountability for abuses of power or you can have an “independent” counsel and “the process.” Political accountability is driven by congressional investigations and court cases brought by citizens whose rights have been trampled. It is messy, combative, and political, but the malfeasance it uncovers can result in the removal of corrupt officials from power.

By contrast, “the process,” under the steady hand of “independent” counsels, is neat, silent, and somnolent. In fact, once it starts, that may be the last you hear about it until President Obama pardons everyone on his way out the door.

Indeed–right after a week or so of gullible conservative pundits waxing smugly–and erroneously–indignant about what Obama “wouldn’t dare” or “couldn’t possibly” do, followed closely by gleeful hooraw-ing about his concomitant “nosedive” in the polls after he does it, and the absolute certainty of a tsunami of Republicrat victory in the next round of meaningless elections. Lather, rinse, repeat until you collapse. Or the country does.

In the end, there’s only one course of action that will bring about the desired result and re-establish the legitimacy of government even partially, and nobody really wants to do it: dismantle the IRS, simplify the tax system, and bring the whole sordid mess more into line with the Constitution. Regrettably, as I said, none of our political masters in DC from either the Demican or Republicrat wing of the Ruling Party are in favor of this, and certainly won’t be sticking their necks out to do it, or even advocate it.

Share

Insult to injury: of course

I’ve mentioned this several times over the past few years: one of my favorite movie quotes is from The Pope Of Greenwich Village, when Diane tells Charlie, “You don’t even bother to lie to me carefully anymore. It’s insulting to be lied to so obviously.”

Yeah. That.

Who knew that the Obama administration had a penchant for black humor? Earlier this year, in February, President Obama told Bill O’Reilly during an interview on Fox News that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS scandal involving the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups. In July 2103, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew foreshadowed his boss’s nonchalance by insisting that there was “no evidence” that any political appointee had been involved in the scandal.

Now we may know why. After months of delay in responding to congressional inquiries, the IRS now claims that, for the period of January 2009 to April 2011, all e-mails between Lois Lerner — the IRS official at the center of the scandal — and anyone outside the IRS were wiped out by a “computer crash.” As House Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp wrote in a statement, this loss means that “we are conveniently left to believe that Lois Lerner acted alone.” After all, there isn’t a “smidgen” of e-mail evidence to suggest otherwise.

Of course not; they destroyed it all.

A growing number of computer professionals are stepping forward to say that none of this makes sense.

Of course not. It’s a lie, and not even a very good or sedulous one.

Norman Cillo, a former program manager at Microsoft, told The Blaze: “I don’t know of any e-mail administrator [who] doesn’t have at least three ways of getting that mail back. It’s either on the disks or it’s on a TAPE backup someplace on an archive server.” Bruce Webster, an IT expert with 30 years of experience consulting with dozens of private companies, seconds this opinion: “It would take a catastrophic mechanical failure for Lerner’s drive to suffer actual physical damage, but in any case, the FBI should be able to recover something. And the FBI and the Justice Department know it.”

Of course they do. Unfortunately, they have an interest in hiding the truth, being up to the eyeballs in this treasonous gangster-government corruption–wherein the very legitimacy of our ersatz representative republic has been entirely subverted–themselves.

In March of this year, John Koskinen, the new IRS commissioner, testified before Congress that all the e-mails of IRS employees are “stored in servers.” The agency’s own manual specifies that it “provides for backup and recovery of records to protect against information loss or corruption.” The reason is simple. It is well known in legal and IT circles that failure to preserve e-mails can lead to a court ruling of “spoliation of evidence.” That means a judge or jury is then instructed to treat deletions as if they were deliberate destruction of incriminating evidence.

Of course they are. Because in this as in many other cases, that’s precisely what it was.

Why is the loss of the Lerner e-mails particularly important? Last year’s report by the IRS inspector general set out a timeline of the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. A full 16 of the 26 non-redacted events in the inspector general’s timeline took place during the period for which all of Lerner’s e-mails were “lost,” and these 16 instances refer to “e-mail” as the source for information on that event. As tax expert Alan Joel points out, much of the context about how the IRS scandal developed and who may have known about it is now “lost” in the black hole the Lerner e-mails are supposed to have been sucked into.

Of course it is. That is neither accident nor coincidence; they weren’t “sucked” into any “black hole,” they were stuffed into it, with malicious intent and full foreknowledge. The IRS’s dog-ate-my-homework defense isn’t merely feeble, it’s outright laughable. As was mentioned here the other day: try a defense like that yourself against the IRS when they’ve gotten their teeth thoroughly into your nether regions. See where it gets ya.

If there is an ongoing cover-up of the IRS scandal, it’s obvious why some folks would be desperate to continue it.

“If”? IF“?!?

Last year, Time magazine’s liberal columnist Joe Klein wrote that the IRS scandal placed President Obama “on the same page as Richard Nixon.”

He is far worse than Nixon ever dreamed of being, in both his core corruption–which is entire and unmitigated–and his arrogant lawlessness, his belief in his own divine right to rule in any way he sees fit–which is absolute and unswerving. Proof? Nixon at least had the decency to resign once his complicity and the concomitant disgrace was obvious. Who out there could even dream of Obama ever doing such a thing?

Share

UNEXPECTED: rotten to the very core

The headline and sub-heds say it all:

IRS’s tea-party noose tightens: Targeting campaign was directed by HQ in Washington, D.C. – not by a few ‘rogue agents’ in Ohio, documents reveal

  • Bombshell emails indicate handling of scheme targeting conservative nonprofit groups was quarterbacked at the IRS’s D.C. office
  • Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, applied pressure in 2012 to the IRS to slow down mostly right-leaning groups he thought were too ‘political’
  • Former IRS official Lois Lerner emailed IRS managers about how to tell if a ‘Be On the Lookout’ targeting list applied to specific tea party groups
  • Judicial Watch got emails in a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit, casting new doubt on claims that the plot involved ‘rogue employees’ in Ohio

Now let’s see, what was that old saying about how the fish rots again…? But remember, as Ace reminds us: not a smidgen of corruption, according to the Liar in Thief.

Impeach him, fire them, dismantle their agency root and branch, ride every one of these un-American bastards out of Mordor on the Potomac on a rail and throw them into the Potomac. Then nuke the site from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure.

Share

Rope, tree, (fill in the blank), some assembly required

Just remember, it’s an OUTRAGE! to say that in reference to the swarms of officers sent hither to harass our people and eat out their substance. It’s absolutely fine to say it about The E-ville Rich. It’s also okay for angry mobs to show up at their doorsteps in the middle of the night. Just so’s you know the rules.

Tom Perkins is not exactly a sympathetic figure, but the man has a point.

Perkins, a gazillionaire venture capitalist and cofounder of Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, took a well-deserved drubbing for his comparison of anti-“1 percent” invective in the United States with the political conditions leading up to Kristallnacht in Germany. His offense there was both against good taste and substance. He has something useful and true to say about the anti-democratic, illiberal, and periodically violent mood of Western anti-capitalism and the American partisans of class warfare, but none of that is very much like Nazism. Not very many things are very much like Nazism.

Actually, I’d argue that liberal-fascism is developing into something damned close; we haven’t reached the end game yet, but they share the same ideological heritage and many of the same goals and intentions. Not all, of course; present-day “liberals” reserve their nationalist tendencies not for their own country but for Muslim countries and the UN. Anyways.

Today, he is once again being locked in the stocks of public opinion for suggesting, only partly tongue-in-cheek, that people who pay an enormously disproportionate share of the taxes should have a disproportionate say in public policy. “The Tom Perkins system is: You don’t get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes,” he said. “But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How’s that?”

Cue outrage, etc.

But Mr. Perkins here has only taken a step that progressives took a few generations ago, when they embraced escalating rates of taxation as a foundation for economic justice, and applied it to a different problem. If our political liabilities — taxes — should be as a matter of justice proportional to our income, then why shouldn’t our political inputs be likewise proportionate? Why should proportionality be the rule in one context and not the other? The leap from “No taxation without representation” to “proportional taxation with proportional representation” is not a very dramatic one. But Mr. Perkins has been received as though he were the offspring of Marie Antoinette and an unreconstructed Ebenezer Scrooge.

Indeed, even proportional taxation was not, and is not, enough for our progressives. A flat tax on income would be perfectly proportional: A man earning $100,000 a year would pay ten times as much as a many earning $10,000 a year. Most conservatives would be perfectly happy with that arrangement. Progressives demand more. Not only must high-income people pay taxes that are proportional to their incomes, they must pay taxes that are disproportionately high as a share of their incomes: 10 percent of one dollar earned, 15 percent of the next.

The case for an income tax that is proportional is far from obvious, and the case for one that is progressive even less so.

Again, I’d argue with that one: I’d say their case is quite obvious, as long as you keep in mind that it’s not the one they make right out loud. The real case is that Progressivists want the One Percenters’ money to do with as they please, but they don’t want to have to earn it. The rest of Kevin’s arguments I can find no fault with, including–especially–this one:

The Left defends this arrangement on the grounds that the high-income have “benefited more,” but there is some serious question-begging in that proposition: People who can afford good schools benefit rather less from our government-school system than do those who can’t afford alternatives. People who finance their own retirements in many cases benefit less from Social Security and Medicare, our largest domestic expenditures, than people who do not. The very wealthy almost by definition benefit less from our vast and progressive array of federal taxes and entitlements.

But again, it’s not a matter of being truly “fair”; that’s just another word they’ve stood on its head to mean the exact opposite of its actual definition. It’s more a matter of what they want and believe they deserve–“deserve” being yet another of those words that have been redefined by “liberals.” The bottom line here is envy–and that’s a word they refuse to acknowledge at all.

Share

Not quite a hero

How far we have fallen.

I have been an attorney in the IRS Office of Chief Counsel for over 26 years. Over a number of years, I have attempted, largely unsuccessfully, to alert the public to abuse within the IRS. One of my kids suggested that I contact a blog and Power Line has graciously agreed to publish this account.

I do not personally know whether the IRS has targeted conservative groups or individuals, but I do know that the environment within the agency is ripe for such activity and there is nothing to prevent it from occurring. As stated in more detail below, I have personally witnessed improper giveaways of billions of dollars to taxpayers with inside access at the agency, bullying of elderly taxpayers, the cover-up of managerial embezzlement and misappropriation of thousands of dollars in government funds, and a retaliatory audit. I have also heard credible accounts of, among other things, further improper giveaways, blatant sexual harassment, and anti-Semitism. All of these matters have been swept under the rug.

Within the past few years, the IRS has used a “cadre” to pursue a particular type of case. I was assigned one of those cases that was in Tax Court. I believed that we should concede the case in question because our legal position was incorrect. As a result, I was called a quitter and a coward, was threatened with retaliation, and in fact suffered retaliation. The “cadre” (I hate that term, but that’s what they call themselves) pushed cases with an obvious legal defect. Taxpayers were denigrated in writing as “upper class twits” and one cadre member stated that, despite the weakness in our legal position, the taxpayers in these cases were typically elderly and could be forced into settling their cases. I stated my ethical concerns to management, but they answered with a short non-response and did not even bother to ask for the name of the cadre member who stated that we could bully elderly taxpayers into settling their cases. (The Tax Court ultimately rejected the Service’s position regarding the legal issue.)

I am reporting the information stated above because as a federal employee, I took an oath to the United States. I have a legal and moral obligation to report this information. I am proud of my colleagues in the IRS. The vast majority of us attempt to do our jobs in a conscientious manner. However, there is a culture of corruption within the IRS that dishonors that majority and the government we serve. Any organization will have its share of bad apples and misconduct. What separates the IRS is its junkyard dog ferocity in covering up misconduct. There is a strong cultural imperative within the IRS to protect the organization and high-ranking officials’ positions within it. If you report misconduct or dissent from the party line, your career is finished. Period. (For example, I still as of this moment have a job, but my career was finished as soon as I reported that manager for embezzlement.)

As stated above, I have no direct knowledge of harassment for political reasons. I fear, however, that the ordinary citizens recounting stories of IRS abuse due to their political beliefs are telling the truth. (It is naïve to think that IRS executives would engage in the activities described above, but somehow draw the line at politically motivated harassment.) If these taxpayer accounts are true, then the IRS executives are doing it for a very simple reason: because they can. There is no accountability for IRS misconduct and people within the agency are scared to speak out and also believe, with considerable justification, that such action would be futile.

I have chosen to speak out in part because I have personally experienced the horrific damage that bureaucratic bullies can inflict. I also have tried to live up to the admonition in Romans 12:21: do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. I could sit around and knock down Jim Beam and complain, or I could try to do something constructive about the situation. I chose the latter option.

And good for him, I guess; at least he’s trying. But he’s right about such action being futile in the end, because it will never be enough to throw the jackals off our necks. “Exposing” people who are immune to repercussions, whose power is absolute, and who are entirely without shame isn’t going to do anything more about bringing them to justice (to use one of the most played-out phrases in the English language) than myriad sham “investigations” and “special prosecutors” and blue-ribbon panels will. I’ll acknowledge that it takes courage to speak up at all in police-state America and leave it more or less at that. Ivy Mike, on the other hand, takes it further:

Well sir, I guess I can say “thank you” for stating the obvious, and confirming what tens of millions of Americans already know. I do find it interesting that as a federal employee you took an oath, in your words, to the “United States” absent “Constitution.” A curious omission from a man who has such tenure in law.

I am sure there was a strong cultural imperative at the Stasi to protect the organization from reports of misconduct, since their entire mission could be easily categorized as misconduct by any civilized society that protects the rights of its citizens.

Would your mea culpa have been an acknowledgement to the immorality of the IRS as an organization, the illegitimacy of the internal revenue code in its entirety, and your awakening as a human being that the enforcement of said code by said agency goes against every fiber of decency in the human heart, I’d be impressed. I’d buy you a bottle of fine scotch whiskey if you finished your confession with an announcement that you have tendered your resignation to Team Tyranny and are now open for business using your deep knowledge of the internal revenue code as a consultant to defend people from the very agency in which you spent twenty-six years helping grow into the malignant behemoth it is today.

Doing that at risk of losing your premium dental care? I won’t hold my breath.

If this guy is a hero, we’ve defined the word pretty far downward. But the unfortunate and larger truth is that if Americans in the main possessed even a fraction of the integrity, courage, and wisdom of the Founders, there wouldn’t be an IRS as we know it at all.

(Via WRSA)

Share

Happy birthday, tyranny!

Drop dead soon now, y’hear?

Amid all the attention paid to the government shutdown — more of a “slimdown,” as 83 percent of the government remains open — few people noticed that last Friday, October 4, marked the 100th anniversary of the federal income tax. The size and intrusiveness of the federal government that is at the heart of today’s shutdown would never have been possible without the income tax.

For a century and a quarter, the United States avoided an income tax. Thomas Jefferson warned against such “internal” taxes, saying that under the British they had “filled our land with officers and opened our doors to their intrusions.”

As usual, he said a mouthful there.

Critics warned a century ago that the new tax would ultimately be ruinous. The income tax “will tax the honest and allow the dishonest to escape,” the New York Times wrote. “Even those who approve the tax despite its faults cannot contend that the same sums could not have been raised more certainly, more equitably, and with less trouble to both payers and collectors by a stamp tax.” The Times warned that in any emergency the tax rates would be sure to rise and that “its unpopularity will grow with its life.”

Today, the heavy burden of taxes is clearly a major drag on our country’s economy. The U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. In 1913, the total number of pages in the tax code was only 400. Today, it’s 73,954.

Some will claim the government-shutdown fight is about Obamacare. Others will say it is about the long-term debt we are loading onto future generations. Liberals will claim it’s about Republicans’ petulance in the face of bills we must pay. But in no small part it is also about the size and scope of the federal government that the income tax ushered in exactly a century ago. That’s why it’s so fitting that the shutdown battle is happening right now. It’s time for rhetoric that rises above partisanship. It’s time for some reflection about what kind of country we’ve become — thanks to the income tax.

It damned sure is. And it’s time to do something about it other than just whining every year at tax time and then meekly coughing up like good little sheep, too.

Share

Another idea whose time has come

The time came a long time ago, as a matter of fact.

Proponents of tax reform explain that there are many reasons to junk the internal revenue code and adopt something like a flat tax.

  • Improve growth – The low marginal tax rate, the absence of double taxation, and the elimination of distortions combine to create a system that minimizes the penalties on productive behavior.
  • Boost competitiveness – In a competitive global economy, it is easy for jobs and investment to cross national borders. The right kind of tax reform can make America a magnet for money from all over the world.
  • Reduce corruption – Tax preferences and penalties are bad for growth, but they are also one of the main sources of political corruption in Washington. Tax reform takes away the dumpster, which means fewer rats and cockroaches.
  • Promote simplicity – Good policy has a very nice side effect in that the tax system becomes incredibly simple. Instead of the hundreds of forms required by the current system, both households and businesses would need only a single postcard-sized form.
  • Increase privacy – By getting rid of double taxation and taxing saving, investment, and profit at the business level, there no longer is any need for people to tell the government what assets they own and how much they’re worth.
  • Protect civil liberties – A simple and fair tax system eliminates almost all sources of conflict between taxpayers and the IRS.

All of these benefits also accrue if the internal revenue code is abolished and replaced with some form of national sales tax. That’s because the flat tax and sales tax are basically different sides of the same coin. Under a flat tax, income is taxed one time at one low rate when it is earned. Under a sales tax, income is taxed one time at one low rate when it is spent.

Neither system has double taxation. Neither system has corrupt loopholes. And neither system requires the nightmarish internal revenue service that exists to enforce the current system.

All of the reasons given above are good ones, logical ones, fair and workable ones…and are also why our misbegotten government will resist with all its considerable might; its minions and apparatchiks are quite simply opposed to every last one of them. Still, read it all anyway; Dan lists several other reasons for this sort of reform that ought to be compelling, but won’t be to the sewer rats currently in charge.

Update! Good comment at WRM’s joint:

In describing the RR approach it’s more precise to use the phrase “tax rate” for the cuts they envision. Overall their goal is to recognize Hauser’s law for the fact that it is: “no matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5 percent of GDP.”

Among the conclusions that can be drawn is that one increases tax revenue by increasing the GDP. That argues for lower tax rates to stimulate growth while the taxman taketh 19.5% of a larger pie.

Hauser’s law also implies that raising tax rates reduces GDP, thereby reducing tax revenue. You still collect your 19.5%, but it’s from a smaller pie.

If you really want to strangle growth, keep all tax rates where they are and add a VAT. This is a trick we learned from the old country. Works like a charm.

Yep, every time it’s been tried, and to everyone’s detriment. This is called, by liberal fascists, “watching out for the little guy,” “protecting the middle class,” and other such bass-ackwards nonsense.

Share

Sayonara, suckers

Didn’t get a chance to mention this story yet, but this is my take exactly:

As is well known now, Facebook co-founderEduardo Saverin recently renounced his U.S. citizenship. Though no specific reason was given by Saverin for his decision, wise minds could very credibly proclaim him an American hero for doing what he did.

Indeed, Saverin’s U.S. “de-friend” is great for economic growth on its face, and then the political implications of his move will hopefully pay future taxation dividends that accrue to entrepreneurialism and advancement. Media members will vilify Saverin, but hysteria from that quarter is to be expected.

Saverin’s essential maneuver will at first glance hopefully get Americans thinking once again about our wrongheaded system of taxation. As it stands now, Americans, through taxes levied on income and capital gains, are explicitly forced to “prove” their income to the IRS.

Think about the above for a moment. A nation founded on skepticism about politicians and government now has as one of its most powerful institutions a revenue agency meant to badger its citizens about how much they owe a government utterly contemptuous of constitutional limits. To this insatiable beast, Saverin is apparently saying no. Good for him!

Amen. The misbegotten Leviathan we’re currently tyrannized by isn’t one worthy of any truly free individual’s allegiance, affection or respect, as I’ve said here several times already. The slogan “I love my country, but fear my government” has never been more apt. The more of us wake up to the sad reality of it, the better, and it can’t happen too soon. The rest of the article is likewise right on the money, and I highly recommend it. In sum:

In Saverin’s case, his decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship will have a definite impact, and for that, those of us who seek smaller government should view him as a hero. Saverin’s decision will starve the feds of revenue they would almost certainly waste, it will force a rethink of a tax code that penalizes income and investment success, and the unconsumed dollars kept from the hands of government will reach today’s and tomorrow’s businesses. Let’s raise a glass to Eduardo Saverin. He’s a true American hero.

Done and done.

Share

Running the numbers

In Ogabeworld, they don’t add up.

When he first unveiled the tax-hike plan he dubbed the Buffett Rule, President Obama claimed it would “raise enough money” to “stabilize our debt and deficits.”

“This is not politics,” he insisted,“it’s math.”

Well, it looks like Obama finally double-checked the arithmetic.

Because the White House now disingenuously claims that the proposed 30 percent minimum tax rate on high-earners “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control.”

Instead, says the president, it’s all about “fairness” and making sure that “all Americans play by the same rules.”

As the Heritage Foundation notes, the top 1 percent of US taxpayers — those earning more than $380,000 a year — earn 20 percent of all income, but pay 38 percent of all income taxes. And those in the top 10 percent ($114,000-plus) earn 45 percent of the income and pay 70 percent of all taxes.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent — those earning less than $33,000 — pay less than 3 percent of federal taxes while earning 13 percent of the income.

Indeed, nearly half of all US households pay absolutely no federal income tax at all.

Actually, what Obama really wants is a dramatic increase in the capital-gains tax — which primarily hits business owners and investors.

The very people, that is, who create the jobs that America — beset by chronic high unemployment — desperately needs.

And, by so doing, keep more people off various welfare lines and therefore less reliant on government–and that’s what Obama really doesn’t want.

Update! More numbers from Krauthammer:

Okay. Let’s do the math. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this new tax would yield between $4 billion and $5 billion a year. If we collect the Buffett tax for the next 250 years — a span longer than the life of this republic — it would not cover the Obama deficit for 2011 alone.

As an approach to our mountain of debt, the Buffett Rule is a farce. And yet Obama repeated the ridiculous claim again this week. “It will help us close our deficit.” Does he really think we’re that stupid?

Of course he does. He’s a liberal-fascist; the idea that he’s smarter than everybody else is his whole raison d’everydamnedthing. Update within an update! On reflection, I really have to include this absolutely perfect bit from Krauthammer’s piece:

Three years ago, Obama promised universal health care that saves money. Today, he offers a capital gains tax hike that spurs economic growth. This is free-lunch egalitarianism.

The Buffett Rule redistributes deck chairs on the Titanic, ostensibly to make more available for those in steerage. Nice idea, but the iceberg cometh.

And that right there is why Krauthammer is Krauthammer, and guys like me…ain’t. A mere handful of lines, just chock full of rich, buttery goodness.

Distinction without much difference update! Yet more numbers-running, revealing that absolutely no one in either feckless party is taking the coming train wreck very seriously:

For instance, the president denounces the Ryan budget as “thinly veiled Social Darwinism.” One would think that Social Darwinism would mean actually cutting the budget. But in reality, Ryan’s budget increases federal spending by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. 

Ryan does spend roughly $352 billion less over 10 years on domestic discretionary spending than would the president. The president suggests that this means that children could no longer go to college, the weather service would be abolished, and roads and bridges would crumble into dust. In reality, the largest gap between the president’s spending plans and Ryan’s would occur in 2016, when Ryan would spend $43 billion less on domestic discretionary programs than the president. That amounts to roughly 1.1 percent of projected total federal spending that year. Ryan would, in fact, slightly increase discretionary domestic spending from $1.170 trillion in 2013 to $1.212 trillion in 2022. Social Darwinism should be made of sterner stuff.

Of course it should–and, actually, is. It’s just that Americans themselves aren’t made of particularly stern stuff these days, and prefer self-deceit to facing the difficult choices.

Share

The Democrat Socialists have big plans for you

Most of which involve stealing everything you earn so it can be redistributed as they see fit.

Liberal House Democrats on Monday unveiled a 2013 budget that increases taxes by $4.7 trillion more than President Obama proposed in his own budget last month.


The Congressional Progressive Caucus said the taxes are necessary to fund $2.9 trillion in new stimulus spending to “put Americans back to work” and “rebuild the middle classes” while reducing the deficit. This new spending includes canceling the cuts in last August’s debt-ceiling deal between Congress and the White House.


The CPC budget will be offered as an amendment this week to the House GOP budget for 2013, which contains $2 trillion less in revenue than Obama has proposed over 10 years.

Liberals get $897 billion in tax revenue from imposing an energy tax on carbon fuels, and $849 billion from taxing Wall Street trades. Another $319 comes from a millionaires surtax. The CPC budget also ends Bush-era tax rates for the wealthy.

Get to work, serfs! Obama needs a new pair of everything, and this gargantuan federal Leviathan we built over the objections of formerly free Americans ain’t gonna pay for itself, y’know. You gotta love that “reducing the deficit” bullshit, though–as if these Marxist spendthrifts had any interest in that at all, and wouldn’t just blow through every dime of extra revenue they manage to glom onto…and then cry for even more taxes after they hit the next budget wall.

Anyone wondering why the economy seems permanently stalled needn’t look a whole lot further than insane crap like this. I’d say most business types don’t find such particularly reassuring, especially after seeing so many depressing reminders over the last couple of years (or longer) of just how reliably the GOP can be counted on to stand up in opposition to it.

Share

Whodathunkit

Eat the rich, maaan, tax them all to Hell and gone. Go ahead. See what it gets ya.

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

Only a statist idiot could be surprised by this. Which brings us to this:

Oopsie! It turns out that the wealthy can find ways to shelter income when government drives the cost of taxes high enough to make it worthwhile. If that means taking their money and going where the tax laws are more welcoming to investment, then this particular population has fewer barriers to making that solution work than most of the middle class. Instead of gaining more revenue, the UK will end up losing revenue, and not just from the sheltering — but also in lost economic growth as the wealthy have to put that capital to sleep rather than make it work in the economy.

Obama’s plan to hike capital-gains taxes to 20% and push a surtax on higher earnings will produce the same result here. The capital that might have gone to work in the US will go to work somewhere else or not at all, which will not just kill the direct revenues expected in static tax analysis from the hike, but also discard the revenues that would have occurred had the capital been put to work here. That’s the lesson from the British face-plant on surtaxes, and hopefully the US learns that lesson the easy way.

I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, Ed. You can drag a Lefty dumbass to the truth, but you can’t make him think.

Share

Perspective

On Romney’s taxes:

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about that 13.9 percent tax rate. As it happens, the lowest effective tax rate paid by a recent presidential contender was 13.1 percent. That fat-cat tax-evading money-grubbing greedy snob was none other than John Kerry, the Democrat candidate for President in 2004. As Romney pointed out in the Monday night GOP debate, he inherited nothing and earned his wealth. Kerry inherited everything, by marrying a rich man’s widow. Do you remember a lot of Democrats howling with rage over Kerry’s amazingly low effective tax rate? Was it ever mentioned at all?

Even at an effective rate of 13.9 percent, Romney forked over $3 million dollars, which is more than the combined payment of several hundred middle-class taxpayers. Barack Obama’s $3.6 trillion government spent Romney’s three million bucks in precisely 27 seconds. If every penny of Romney’s annual tax was used to pay down the national debt, Obama’s government would borrow it all back in 73 seconds. If the government had confiscated Romney’s full 2011 earnings of $20.9 million, it would have enough money to run for just over three minutes.

Since the average cost of Obama’s “green jobs” works out to about $4.8 million apiece, Mitt Romney’s annual taxes are not quite enough to fund one green job.

Which, of course, produces nothing of any value whatever. The bottom line:

Instead of fiddling around with huge volumes of tax law to produce ideologically acceptable outcomes, the government should be taking as little as possible from its citizens, using the most clear and simple methods possible, and spending no more than it collects. That will never happen, but the acolytes of leftist Big Government also don’t have the guts to do what they really want, and call for the seizure of all income above a politically determined limit. “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” as lifelong politician Barack Obama once observed.

Well, hey, it’s only fair, you know. If you’re a pig-ignorant, deceitful faux-pResident intent on dragging a nation over the socialist cliff into destruction so you can then remake it to your own dysfunctional standards, that is.

Share

Sky King George III: “No Transportation Without Taxation!”

“Hardly a day passes where I don’t walk out on the (House) floor that someone asks me, ‘When are we going to re-regulate the airlines?'”–Rep. James Oberstar, (D.-PermaBureaucracy)

Travel Blog:

“Fees are a business decision best made by each airline,” Ridley said, adding that the federal government should make sure all fees are disclosed to consumers. Robert Rivkin, the Department of Transportation’s general counsel, said government officials are looking at ways to tighten regulations on how airlines inform consumers of such fees. “We believe that the proliferation of these fees and the manner in which they are presented to the traveling public can be confusing and in some cases misleading,” Rivkin said. Published fares used by consumers to choose flights don’t “clearly represent the cost of travel when these services are added.”

Umm, excuse me, but…have you seen the Tax Code lately?

“Confusing and misleading the public” about the cost of government seems like Job #1 around Washington, DC–starting with the ridiculous, laughable, cynically dishonest fantasy budget projections used in the HealthControl debacle. Congress won’t even adopt a budget this year, in hopes of keeping the public fooled.

In a warning to the industry, panel members asked about the possibility of extending the airline excise tax of 7.5 percent charged on airline tickets to the unbundled fees, which currently escape the tax. The tax revenue funds the Federal Aviation Administration.

Ah–it’s about their baggage problem, not yours.

Speaking of shining a light, the Foundry:

In spite of supporting regulations that will force all Americans to switch out old light bulbs for more expensive new ones (the good old incandescent bulb will be illegal in 2012), it seems that the DOE itself finds that it’s too much trouble and too expensive to adopt the latest energy-saving technologies.

An audit of 96 buildings by the department’s inspector general reveals, “For the most part, sites either did not use, or made limited use of, innovative lighting technologies developed in the Department’s research laboratories.” The DOE is not even availing itself of the technologies that, as part of its mission, it helped create. The primary impediment cited was a “lack of resources.” In other words, the energy savings were too expensive.

The DOE is cheerleader for parsimony in energy consumption for everybody else. Yet it still hasn’t outfitted a majority of its own buildings with occupancy sensors and the latest lighting technology. Maybe American households should also be allowed to choose which “money-saving” technologies they want to adopt and when they want to adopt them.

Republicans should run on this in the fall, even though Bush signed this stupid law:

A government that doesn’t trust you with light bulbs or ticket prices, yet hides all its own costs in the dark.

Share

VAT Dog Won’t Hunt

ARF!

Irwin Stelzer explains the VAT, inasmuch as it can be explained:

Food for animals creates other problems. If it is “suitable for all breeds” it is taxed, but if “it is held out for sale exclusively for working dogs” it is not, unless, of course, “it is biscuit or meal,” in which case it is taxed.

So dog food for “sheepdog breeds” is taxed, but dog food for “working sheep dogs of any breed” is not; food for greyhounds is taxed, food for “racing greyhounds” is not. This may be the only tax in Britain that favors work over leisure.

Share

Mark Steyn, Doc Zero and Rush Limbaugh: Tax Collectors for the Welfare State?

“You could only make four pictures, and then you were in the top bracket. So we all quit working after four pictures and went off to the country.”–Ronald Reagan

In Hollywood back then, Reagan faced 90%-plus tax rates. Today in America, half of our tax-payers pay 96% of income taxes.

Just for the record, Reagan didn’t oppose those tax rates out of concern for the wealthy, as demagogues claim.

He thought it was morally wrong to punish work and achievement. He thought it hurt working people like the the studio best-boys and theater popcorn-girls. And at that end of the Laffer Curve, government-mandated unproductivity actually costs the government money, not unlike Teddy Kennedy’s tax on yachts; it didn’t hurt rich people a bit, but until it was sheepishly repealed, it nearly destroyed the craftsmen of New England’s boat-building industry, which had flourished for four centuries until do-gooder, know-it-all liberals came along.

Mark Steyn:

And yet for an increasing number of Americans, tax season is like baseball season: It’s a spectator sport. According to the Tax Policy Center, for the year 2009, 47 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax. Obviously, many of them pay other kinds of taxes — state tax, property tax, cigarette tax. But at a time of massive increases in federal spending, half the country is effectively making no contribution to it…

We are now not merely disincentivizing economic energy but actively waging war on it. If 51 percent can vote themselves government lollipops from the other 49 percent, soon, 60 percent will be shaking down the remaining 40 percent, and then 70 percent will be sticking it to the remaining 30 percent. How low can it go? When you think about it, that 53 percent of American households prop up not just this country but half the planet: They effectively pick up the defense tab for our wealthiest allies, so that Germany, Japan and others can maintain minimal militaries and lavish the savings on cradle-to-grave entitlements. A relatively tiny group of people is writing the check for the entire global order. What proportion of them would need to figure out the game’s no longer worth it to bring the whole system crashing down?

Rush Limbaugh even has a pie chart permanently on his website, making the same point.

Doc Zero mentions removing the vote from non-taxpayers–something like we had two centuries ago when only property-owners could vote. But he quickly dismisses that, and the real meat of his argument is this:

It’s not welfare, as conventionally understood, that is killing us. How much of that 47% who don’t pay income taxes are living in desperate poverty? The truth is that middle-class entitlements are the unsustainable tumor which fills the beds of Hospice America.

Social Security, Medicare, and now ObamaCare will swell to consume the entire federal budget, along with much of the wealth produced by the entire planet, within the next two decades. That’s the fearful nature of the deficit tornado spinning over Washington D.C. Charity for the destitute is not unsustainable, even when it’s pumped through the corrupt and wasteful digestive system of the federal government.

ObamaCare isn’t a system of health-care vouchers for the poor, financed by a tax on the middle and upper classes. It’s a complete takeover of the insurance industry, designed to ensnare both the middle and lower classes, with the ultimate goal of directly controlling fifteen percent of our economy. The old system of tax-and-spend welfare isn’t good enough for the Left any more, and the public long ago soured on it anyway. Both liberals and conservatives have always understood that massive entitlements for the middle class, such as the left-wing Holy Grail of socialized medicine, were the endgame. They only disagree in their perception of which game would be ending.

C.K. MacLeod disagrees:

I hate the…argument, and I tend to think that conservatives are fools to make too much of it. On the face of it, on the level of the real world shorthand takeaway, the argument seems to put conservatives on the side of higher taxes for some number between 0 to 100% of the poorer half of the population, and according to some species of a “fairness” justification. You guys sure that’s where we want to be?

Jen Kuznicki disputes MacLeod:

Tea partiers are concerned with the direction of the country, and people in my income range are afraid for their children. We always worked toward helping our children so they would have it better than us. It is as if the past 20 years toward that goal has just been flushed and now we have to scramble.

The taxation argument does not usually fly with lower income people, but the future of the country does, because no matter what you make, being an American is our first thought.

I’m not even sure there really is an “income” tax anymore; just taxes–and taxes and taxes and taxes. payroll taxes. sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, real estate taxes, property taxes, telephone taxes, lodging taxes, state taxes, city taxes, estate taxes, energy taxes, etc. If you buy foreign, you pay a built-in VAT-tax. If you buy domestic, you pay a built-in lawyer-tax.

And then there are “fees”. and “licenses”. and “assessments”. and “costs”. and “permits”. and “penalties”.

There is certainly a blurring of the lines. The Feds keep funding more local education…and take more control. They vote for more Medicaid in Congress…but the states have to pay half the tab. Much of the Stimulus was federal spending for state and municipal union workers. The Stimulus also shored up state unemployment funds–although that may be fair, since the Feds wrecked the economy.

The Stimulus also enticed states to legislate more unemployment funding, even arrogantly ordering the balance of power between governors and state legislatures to be changed.

And even “dedicated” taxes are fungible. Al Gore’s Social Security “lockbox” is a notebook in the bottom of a file cabinet in West Virginia full of IOUs. The dedicated gasoline tax is merely transportation money Congress doesn’t have to spend out of general revenues.

Some days I wonder if Obama’s right; maybe it’s all just magic money. If so, the Welfare State is too stingy; if money is as meaningless as Washington acts, we should just give everybody a printing press and let them print their own money at will.

Or we could decide what is really important, make choices and find a reasonable way to pay for those choices. Because right now, we’ve decided everything is important and everything should be a government program and everything should be funded. Everything.

Mark Steyn, Doc Zero and Rush Limbaugh aren’t suggesting anyone’s taxes should be raised. Reagan’s answer to 90% taxation was not to raise other people’s taxes, either. Nor was it just to cut taxes.

It was to Stop the Insane Spending–because government–and liberals especially–have no internal mechanism that tells them where to stop.

That’s up to us.

Share

Washington VAT-Cats and The Tax that Time Forgot

SUBTRACTION AND EXTRACTION or MANSIONS OF EXPANSION?

Lou Cannon:

Undeterred by his slide in approval ratings, Reagan took two actions that in retrospect provided a basis for his remarkable political comeback.
On one hand, he stood up to members of his own party who wanted Reagan to dump President Carter’s chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, a Wall Street banker who believed — then and now — in fiscal orthodoxy. Volcker, presently relegated to the backbench of Obama’s economic team, was skeptical that the vaunted supply-side tax cuts that Reagan had embraced would accomplish economic miracles. He wanted to crush inflation the old-fashioned way by tightening the money supply and raising interest rates, which he did over the protest of Reagan’s secretary of the Treasury, Donald Regan, who complained that Volcker was impeding economic recovery.
Reagan hadn’t known much about the Fed when he became president — at his first meeting with Volcker he asked him why the Federal Reserve was needed. Economist Martin Anderson, who was present at the meeting, later said that Volcker almost swallowed his ever-present cigar before launching into a cogent explanation of the role of a central bank.
Reagan was often more open to argument than either his boosters or detractors recognized. In this case, he soon became convinced that Volcker was right, and backed his policies. In retrospect, that seems an easy call, but it wasn’t. Republicans, anticipating midterm losses in 1982 as Democrats do now in 2010, were calling for Volcker’s scalp. Senate leader Howard Baker told a group of congressional Republicans, “Volcker’s got his foot on our neck, and we’ve got to make him take it off.”
Reagan’s other key decision was to get out of the White House and campaign for Volcker’s policies, which he had made his own.

With inflation finally crushed, Reagan’s tax cuts and regulatory relief kicked in. The result:

In 1983 the economy came roaring back with a growth rate of 7.6 percent.

And continued to add a quarter-million jobs per month for the rest of Reagan’s terms. Indeed, it took a quarter-century of creeping liberalism to finally wreck the economy again.

Volcker taught Reagan how to stop inflation and Reagan taught Volcker how to grow an economy. Reagan learned Volcker’s lesson, but Volcker has forgotten Reagan’s:

Volcker…said the value-added tax “was not as toxic an idea” as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary. …[H]e said getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control may require such moves. “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.

That is Volcker’s “fiscal orthodoxy”–if we want something, we should pay for it. The question is, do we want a Giant Booby-State that nurses us from cradle to cradle, keeping us as slave babies all our lives instead of men? Volcker is acting as “tax-collector for the Welfare State”, coming along behind the Democrats, sweeping up the donkey droppings after their Entitlement Day parades.

Why not challenge the spending of the Credit Card State instead of telling citizens to get a second or third job to Feed the Beast?

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council:

“The VAT tax would be bad for everyone, especially small businesses. A VAT is a very dangerous levy. Imposed at each level of production, it hits businesses hard. And given that it is hidden from consumers, it turns out to be a relatively easy tax to increase. The VAT, especially on top of an income tax, builds up government while crushing the entrepreneurial sector of our economy. The VAT idea is grossly misguided. Paul Volcker deserves enormous credit for reining in the inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s as Fed chairman, but when it comes to tax policy in the twenty-first century, his strategies will sink the economy.”

The cotton-grower collects a tax from the mill. The mill collects a tax from the designer. The designer collects a tax from the department store. The department store sells it to you with all those hidden taxes built into the price, with the regular sales taxes tacked on top–which would also be a tax on taxes!

At each stage, when “value” is “added”, government subtracts from that value by extracting a tax. It should be called a Value Subtracted Tax instead.

Michael Reagan:

Even most troubling, this tax comes with a complete lack of transparency. Unlike a sales tax, which the consumer sees as a line item on their sales receipt beyond the retail price, a VAT is simply a hidden tax. It is another way for the federal government to take our money and deliberately leave taxpayers in the dark about their share of footing the bloated federal budget.

Now keep in mind, the addition of a VAT would be on top of our already overly burdensome federal tax system — meaning that you would continue to pay your federal income, payroll, capital gains, and estate taxes. Don’t be deceived into seeing this as a sister to the FairTax reform. This is an entirely new accounting which will significantly increase the price of every good you buy.

It might be worth considering…if the Income Tax were repealed first.

But the Income Tax is how liberals punish achievement, reward supporters and control behavior. Liberals would rather give up eating, breathing and having sex than give up those things.

Matthew Continetti:

What’s funny is that even while liberals advocate higher taxes as a solution to our problems, they ignore the fact that Europe, which is already governed along lines that liberals prefer, faces the same problems. The UK has the income tax and the VAT, but its 2009 deficit- and debt-to-GDP ratios were greater than America’s. Liberals say the only way to avoid a Grecian fiscal crisis is to hike taxes and institute a VAT. Well, Greece has had the income tax and a 19 percent VAT for years, and look where they are today. Here in the states, California has a sales tax, business tax, and one of the highest top income tax rates in the country. It’s still bankrupt.

No amount of tax revenue will stop a politician from spending the additional dollar, and a VAT doesn’t stop politicians from making promises they cannot keep. The better way to bring America’s long-term fiscal picture into balance is through dynamic economic growth and fiscal prudence. You need low taxes for one, and changes to entitlement law (raising the retirement age, pegging benefits to inflation, means-testing, restructuring Medicare) for the other. Most of all, you need to stop spending money you do not have. No new taxes need apply.

Remember Prosperity Yet? Don’t be a VAT-head.

Share

It’s Also the Largest Tax Increase in the History of the World

BY THE WAY

“Some say shift the tax burden to business and industry, but business doesn’t pay taxes. …Only people pay taxes, all the taxes. Government just uses business in a kind of sneaky way to help collect the taxes. They’re hidden in the price; we aren’t aware of how much tax we actually pay.”–Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation on the Economy, February 5, 1981

And not just the odious and evil $1-per month Abortion Tax on every man, woman and child in America.

That’s completely gratuitous; they don’t really need the money, they just want everyone to be complicit in the Dead Baby Industry. Like all vampires, they simply can’t get enough dead babies.

Economic Collapse:

You see, the crafters of this legislation were smart. They realized that if they included one huge tax increase in the health care bill it would make headlines all over the country, so they chopped up the taxes into a bunch of smaller pieces in order to make them easier to swallow [you mean “hide” and “decieve”–Ed.]. In fact, one review of the Senate version of the health care bill identified at least 19 tax increases. When you put all of the tax increases together they add up to the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States.

Just a few of them from Boston.com:

Section 9008 – Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers – This piece of the legislation imposes a $2.3 billion excise tax on the pharmaceutical industry. The tax is allocated across the industry and is based on market share, not on income. This tax starts immediately and is non-deductible for the corporation being taxed. These companies will still be required to pay their federal income taxes.

Section 9009 – Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers – This section imposes a $2 billion excise tax on the medical device industry. The fee is allocated across the industry based on market share, not on income. This tax starts immediately and is non-deductible for the corporation being taxed.

Section 9010 – Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers – Another excise tax. This one is assessed on the health insurance industry in the amount of $6.7 billion per annum and is also based on market share. How can the imposition of $11 billion in excise taxes (section 9008, 9009 and 9010) on the health care industry reduce costs to consumers? Does anyone else suspect these companies will have to pass these costs over to consumers?

Newsbusters:

When MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough asked O’Donnell about the overhaul bill on his radio show, O’Donnell said ObamaCare raises taxes by almost $500 billion.

Obama’s historic tax increase nearly doubles the previous record-setting tax that O’Donnell helped craft as Democratic Chief of Staff to the Senate Finance Committee during the Clinton administration.

Even O’Donnell conceded that proposing the largest tax increase in American history during a painful recession and double-digit unemployment was a foolish misadventure.

“We liberal Keynesians do not raise taxes in recessions,” said O’Donnell. “We raise taxes when you’re making money. That’s when we raise taxes. And we love to do it.” …

SCARBOROUGH: But how fascinating, though; Lawrence, the liberal, has given Republicans a great talking point. Largest tax increase ever, in the middle of a recession, when real unemployment’s in double digits–that’s probably where the debate’s going to be and not on the Slaughter Rule this fall.

Not if we can stop it.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix