Monthly Archives: September 2019

A Parallel

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats are pretending to hold “‘official’ impeachment inquiries” against President Donald Trump.  It’s a pretense because were they serious, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) would put the matter to a House floor vote and put all Representatives—Republican and Progressive-Democrats alike—on the public record as being for or against an actual impeachment inquiry, as the House, under majorities of both parties, has done for past impeachment moves.  Instead, she has not; the Progressive-Democrats intend only to keep the smear going for the next 14, or so, months in a naked attempt to control the next election.

It’s a dangerous move, though: ordinary Americans, the object of so much contempt from the Left and from Party, aren’t stupid, and they can see clearly what’s happening.  Further, such moves have backfired in those past, legitimately serious (because deeply bipartisan) impeachment efforts: the minority party made equally serious gains in the subsequent elections.

There’s a parallel situation currently unfolding in Austria.

In 2017, Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache was filmed offering to facilitate the purchase of the Kronen Zeitung, Austria’s largest tabloid newspaper, if the purchaser would commit to editorial support for Strache once she gained control.

The filming turned out to be a setup to entrap Strache (the purchaser turned out to be a woman pretending, for the sake of the sting, to be the wealthy niece of a Russian oligarch), but by whom?

Even today, there are few details about who organized the trap or why they waited two years to release the footage….

Even so, the government fell.  Like Bill Clinton, Stache seemed and seems guilty as hell.

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz called a snap election the day after Strache resigned but by the end of the month, Kurz himself had been ousted by a no-confidence motion and replaced by an interim chancellor.

However, today we’re four months later, the new elections were yesterday, and as of Friday,

The party [Freedom Party, Strache’s party] quickly re-calibrated after Strache’s resignation; portraying themselves as victims in a shadowy sting operation.
“The FPÖ came out as heroes—as martyrs—they rephrased the situation,” says Paul Schmidt, Secretary General of the the Austrian Society for European Politics, an NGO in Vienna.

And

The polls indicate Kurz will be re-elected chancellor and he has not ruled out renewing his old coalition with the Freedom Party.

Indeed, early returns indicate Kurz’ party (not directly involved in the scandal) looks to gain seats.  Like ordinary Americans, ordinary Austrians are not stupid, and they don’t like cheap shots—that setup run by who knows whom—or politicians and seeming self-important activists making serious, purely political moves out of relatively minor business.  Clinton’s misuse of a young intern was certainly serious business for his intern and for him, but the impeachment effort was strictly politically done by a party that simply didn’t like the man.

The Progressive-Democrats’ present effort fits the latter.  Trump is atypical for holders of political office, being routinely bluntly- and occasionally crudely-spoken and prone to acting rather than talking.  He’s very much hated by professional politicians for that atypicality, and especially by Progressive-Democrats, who consider election outcomes their personal property and Trump an unauthorized squatter.  They want their property cleared out, and they’re going to do whatever they think they must to reclaim their property in 2020.

Update: Based on exit polling, it looks like Kurz’ ÖVP will gain 37% of the vote, up sharply from the 31% his party got in the prior election.  Only the FPÖ was damaged by Strache’s misbehavior, falling to 16%, and a renewed governing coalition between ÖVP and FPÖ seems unlikely.  Kurz, though, still needs a coalition in order to form a governing majority.

Wealth Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) and Bernie Sanders (I, VT) have proposed taxes on the wealth of Americans—2% on individuals worth more than $50 million and 3% on billionaires in Warren’s case, and from 1% on married couples worth $32 million, rising to 8% on those with wealth over $10 billion in Sanders’.

These are direct taxes, which would make them unconstitutional.  Their unconstitutionality does not arise from their directness but from their lack of State proportionality.  Proportionality—apportionment in the Constitution’s terms—means that such taxes can only be assessed in accordance with a State’s population relative to the other States’ populations, just as Representation in the Federal government House of Representatives is.

Naturally, Warren and Sanders presented their tax proposals armed with economists’ arguments in favor of them.  Two such arguments are these, proffered by Yale Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Bruce Ackerman, but they fail early.  Ackerman’s first, as paraphrased by FoxBusiness, is that a direct tax, as authorized in our Constitution, was

part of a compromise with the slave-holding South…. The purpose of it was to prevent the North from imposing a “head tax” on slaves, because that could not be apportioned equally across the states.
“Given this history, it is extremely unlikely that the justices will cite the founders’ original compromise with slavery to bar a tax that would serve the cause of economic equality and democratic legitimacy[.]”

This is an idle sophistry, though.  As the Constitutional authorization for direct taxes currently stands—since ratification of the 14th Amendment—all references to slavery and to slaves have been removed from the nature of direct taxes.  The 14th changed the definition of apportionment to referencing only the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.  That’s the sum and substance of the plain text of the Constitution on the matter of direct taxes.  The historical origin of the direct tax authorization not only is irrelevant, it’s been wholly and explicitly excised from our Constitution as it stands.

Ackerman’s other argument is this that claim that the Warren/Sanders direct tax proposals serve the cause of economic equality and democratic legitimacy.  This, though, is an oxymoron.  Forcing economic equality, even government merely pushing toward it via tax law, is antithetical to democratic legitimacy.  Forcing equal outcomes denies each man his opportunity to show the best that there is in him.  It blocks him from realizing the full outcome from his efforts under his right to equal opportunity.  Indeed, demanding equal outcomes utterly cancels not only each man’s equal opportunity, but his very right to that equality of opportunity.

The Progressive-Democrat candidates’ proposals are wholly unconstitutional—and completely undemocratic.

A Price for Stability

Posted on by
Reply

Global tax reform is a path to a stable international economic regime??

[T]he potential global tax overhaul would force many companies to pay more to governments, not less. But this may be a small price to pay for a stable international framework.

After all,

Existing global tax rules allow companies to transfer those profits, often to a low-tax jurisdiction.

Never mind that an even smaller price—indeed, a net positive gain in prosperity—would be lowering national taxes to the level of the lowest rates imposed by any nation. This would eliminate tax competition, reduce compliance costs as multinational companies no longer had to maneuver the way they realize their incomes and taxes owed, lead to lower end-user prices by reducing taxes as a multinational’s cost center to be covered by the price of its goods.

But no—the globalists want to raise the tax rates to a common high level. They don’t seem to care about actual global prosperity—just getting more of our money for the sake of the chimera of…stability.

I’m minded of Benjamin Franklin in a slightly different milieu:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Aid for Ukraine

Posted on by
Reply

One of the topics discussed by President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodomyr Zelenskiy in “that telecon,” was the degree of aid Germany has provided Ukraine in the latter’s on-going struggle against Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.  Neither considered Germany’s actions anywhere near adequate.

Deutsche Welle demurs from that position.

[A]ccording to the latest OECD figures, Germany is the third largest donor to Ukraine after the European Union as a whole and the US.

Those amounts?

[F]igures provided to DW by the German Foreign Ministry indicate that since 2014, the country has pumped almost €1.2 billion ($1.3 billion) of bilateral financial aid into Ukraine. This total includes some €544 million of official development cooperation, €110 million in humanitarian aid, a financial loan of €500 million, and some €25 million for stabilization measures, such as conflict monitoring and the promotion of the rule of law.
Germany has paid another €200 million to Ukraine via EU aid contributions.

That works out to all of €240 million ($260 million) per year.  And none of it actual material assistance: no money at all for defensive weapons systems or even individual protective equipment, much less systems that would help Ukraine drive the invader back out.  And money for “conflict monitoring?”  Ukraine is already fully capable of watching the Russians in their nation.  The other aid, in other circumstances, would be very useful, but with Ukraine in the military and political straits in which it exists today, the results of that aid are very much in doubt in the face of that Russian occupation and the continued Russian effort to drag the nation back under the Russian yoke.

Third largest amount of aid behind the EU and the US: what a statement of the paltry level of aid that is—especially considering that, during the Obama years, the US also refused to provide any serious aid at all to Ukraine, limiting our “largesse” to blankets and medicines, but not a single bullet or other self-defense capability.

Returning to Germany’s alleged contributions: far from helping Ukraine, Germany has utterly betrayed the nation, functionally repudiating the Budapest Memorandum as it has.  Instead, Germany has pushed for the quickly-failed Minsk Protocol, and continues pushing for Minsk II.  Both of these codify the dismantling of Ukraine that the Memorandum was supposed to prevent—hence the betrayal.

A Chinese Firewall

Posted on by
Reply

…erected by the European Court of Justice.  The ruling is a partial victory for Alphabet’s Google subsidiary in a “right to be forgotten” case brought by Google as it appealed a fine imposed by the French watchdog, the National Commission for Computing and Liberties, which wanted Google to delete all references worldwide to personal data an EU citizen wanted “forgotten.”

The ECJ ruled that the EU’s “right” applied only within the EU—the partial victory.  However, it added that

search engine operators such as Google must put in place measures to discourage internet users from going beyond European borders to obtain information.
Dereferencing must “if necessary, be accompanied by measures that effectively prevent or, at the very least, seriously discourage Internet users” from accessing “via a version of this engine and outside the EU, the links that are the subject of the request,” the court added.

And so it begins in Europe, too.