Repealing SALT

John Tamny, FreedomWorks’ Center for Economic Freedom Director, wants the SALT deduction cap repealed, and he thinks all Republicans should agree with him.

Among the several Tamny rationalizations for why Republicans should leap at the chance to repeal SALT is this gem.

Repealing the SALT cap might not restore that vision [convolutedly, of limited government], but it would direct money away from Washington and toward states and localities.

No. A better way, the only truly effective way and the only legitimate way, to direct money away from Washington and toward states and localities is to end altogether the interstate transfer of taxpayer monies.

The money us citizens allocate to our various government jurisdictional levels are best left within those jurisdictions entirely. Taxes allocated to our central government should be exclusively for the Constitutional purposes of paying the national debt, funding a defense establishment adequate to defeating external threats, and seeing to our nation’s general Welfare as enumerated in Art I, Sect 8. Those taxes allocated to our respective States and lower jurisdictions are best left within those jurisdictions, subject to the requirements and specifications the citizens of each State set for their State.

The only legitimate interstate transfer of tax dollars is in response to a declaration of a regional or national emergency.

The Senate Filibuster

FH Buckley, Foundation Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School, claims Republicans should want to get rid of the Senate’s filibuster. After all, the filibuster, he claims in purple prose

makes it harder to get laws enacted, but it also makes them harder to repeal. With all the noxious laws on the books, Republicans should be the party of repeal.
Getting legislation passed or repealed in America is like waiting for three cherries to line up in a slot machine.

Then he blows up his own argument, and I appreciate his assist.

the filibuster, which since 1975 has permitted 41 senators to block a vote on most legislation.

Irony abounds. Buckley wants the filibuster removed because the thing makes it so hard to rescind noxious (or no longer useful, I add) laws.

In a nutshell: Buckley’s “most legislation” that was filibuster-blocked would have included a plethora of additional noxious laws.

Too, Conservatives, and most Republicans, favor smaller government over larger. How much larger would Government be today if that “most legislation” since 1975 had been enacted?

Like all tools, filibuster can be misused. Like all tools, the filibuster is a net good despite its occasional misuse.

Another Progressive-Democrat Gives the Game Away

It’s Senator Mark Kelly (D, AZ), this time.

I’ll look at any proposal [filibuster reform proposal] and evaluate it, not based on what’s in the best interest of just Democrats, but what’s in the best interest of Democrats, Republicans, the country, and Arizona.

Notice that. His first “best interest” criterion is what’s best for Party—which he emphasized: not…just Democrats, but what’s in the best interest of Democrats…. His second criterion, cynically, is the other party.

What’s good for our nation and for his Arizona constituents are last in his list of who matters.