It’s only a few Americans that we don’t like—the despicable 1% (actually the 0.2%). That’s the Progressive-Democratic Party’s excuse for insisting that the death tax be kept in place in the current tax code reform effort.
The estate tax affects a very small—and very wealthy—number of Americans.
Only the estates of about 2 out of every 1,000 Americans who die face this tax right now.
Besides, repealing the tax, the Progressive-Democrats claim, would
unfairly provide more benefits to the wealthy over low- and middle-income Americans.
Louisiana, run by Progressive-Democrats since Bobby Jindall was term-limited out of office, is facing a $1.5 billion deficit as “temporary” tax increases implemented earlier begin to expire. Jay Dardenne, the center-left Republican Commissioner of Administration, Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards’ chief budget officer, says that “devastating” spending cuts would be necessary absent a renewal of the tax increases or enactment of other tax increases.
The city of Seattle passed a law earlier this year that levied an income tax on the city’s wealthiest—all in the name of equality of outcome and so…fairness.
It turns out that tax was contrary to the State’s law, which said that only the State can levy an income tax and, explicitly, cities cannot. The question also was raised regarding whether the Seattle law was even contrary to the State’s constitution—illegitimate—as well as illegal, but the judge avoided the constitutional question.
The German Marshall Fund of the United States had a worried piece about net neutrality up shortly before Thanksgiving. Ignoring the author’s opening paragraph, wherein she laid out the Left’s nonsense about how getting government out of the business of regulating the Internet as though it were an early- mid-20th century telephone utility, the main point is concern that the US won’t look like Europe if net neutrality isn’t enforced.
While the decision will not significantly impact European policies or consumers directly, it will exacerbate the gap between Washington, DC, and Brussels on law, values, and interests when it comes to the role technology plays in our society.
Congress is still scrambling to find ways to pay for its tax cut, so perhaps it should pay closer attention to last month’s news that George Soros had transferred $18 billion of his fortune to a private charity that he controls. There it will be sheltered from the Internal Revenue Service forever. This may be the single biggest tax dodge in US history, yet no one on the right or left seems to have raised an eyebrow.
Lawyers for Michael T Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, notified the president’s legal team in recent days that they could no longer discuss the special counsel’s investigation, according to four people involved in the case….
Who might those “four people” be? They can only be from Flynn’s team, from President Donald Trump’s team, or from Robert Mueller’s team.
Flynn’s team has no particular reason to leak, nothing to gain; although Flynn plainly has reason to cut the ties—he’s looking to trade favorables to Mueller in return for favorables back.
In a piece onWatts Up With That, Eric Worrall explored the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. (Yes, yes, I know the science is settled, but the fact is the only thing settled is the pseudo-science nesting in the fetid imaginations of climate “science” funding industry personages. The rest of us keep asking rude questions.)
In a piece about President Donald Trump’s domestic business policies—specifically, his administration’s lawsuit to block the merger of AT&T with Time Warner Inc and his parallel move to facilitate other kinds of close relationships between companies like AT&T and Time Warner, The Wall Street Journal described a rationale for these apparently conflicting moves: follow existing law, rather than piling on regulation after regulation to govern (new) behaviors.
[T]he actions reveal one consistency, and what might be viewed as an emerging Trump administration regulatory philosophy: instead of new bright-line rules, such as those put in place under the Obama administration, it is stressing the enforcement of longstanding laws and regulations.
Everett, WA, has passed two ordinances that presume to define “lewd” behavior and forces employees to stop wearing bikinis on the job or otherwise showing “too much” skin. Everett, it seems, has too many coffee shops that employee bikini-clad baristas to suit the prim town fathers.
After all, they claim,
The skin-flaunting coffee servers could turn men into the next Harvey Weinstein.
This is just projection. These Liberals, with their two ordinances, confess their weakness of character, their own lack of morality, their own inability to resist temptation, and they insultingly assume that all of us are as weak, amoral, and temptation-accepting as they are.