Category Archives: politics

Drinking Coolaid

Posted on by
Reply

The NLMSM has done it.  In deep drafts.  And, no, I’m not writing about the recent collusion among NLMSM outlets one Sunday to write coordinated “opinion” anti-Trump pieces.

No, it’s even more blatant than that.  Here is an example of how deeply the NLMSM has drunk of ex-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s (D) coolaid that half of Americans are irredeemably deplorable racist, misogynistic, homophobes and ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) coolaid that we’re all just a bunch of bitter Bible-clinging gun-toters in flyover country.

MSNBC political analyst John Heilemann had this to say about those not on the Left and so too ignorant to agree with him:

I would like a pollster to test this question: how many people in the Republican Party think that it would be OK for Donald Trump to dissolve their own grandparents?

I’m virtually certain that if it was a Donald Trump–related question, you’ll get like 10% that would be like “Donald Trump has the power to do whatever he wants, including kill my parents.”

Heilemann claimed he was being hyperbolic to make a point about Trump loyalists, but you get the idea.

Free Stuff

Posted on by
Reply

In some places, that apparently includes free labor.  At least that’s Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro’s view.  He’s going to

raise wages by nearly 6,000% and…devalue the already-embattled currency by 96%….

Let me get this straight.  The bolívar fuerte (ironic name, that; it translates to “strong bolívar”) already is next door to worthless, Maduro is going to replace it with the sovereign bolivar that’s as much closer to worthless as he can get it (taking five(!) zeros off the face value of each piece of paper, which the sovereign bolivar does—the mechanism of the devaluation), and then he’s going to give workers even more of this useless “wage.”

I’m here to tell you, multiplying a nearly zero value by some number gives an answer that’s still right beside zero.  Maduro is expecting Venezuelans to work for nearly free, and he intends to make their pay even more worthless, so that they work even more nearly for free.

Such a drastic devaluation only fuels inflation: the supply of anything that can be bought is relatively fixed compared to demand, especially so in Venezuela, and making the currency used for purchase even less valuable only requires even higher prices to make the buys.  Throwing lots more money (of any value) at the supply only drastically potentiates the inflation.  The 1,000,000% [sic] inflation that Venezuela has for this year will look stable next year.

On the other hand, Maduro is reaching one of Communism’s two goals: eliminating money altogether and getting from each according to his ability.  Maduro does need to work a little harder on the needs goal, though.

Corporate Free Rides

Posted on by
Reply

Alex Sanchez, Florida Bankers Association President and CEO, is worried about corporate welfare.

The problem with modern American credit unions boils down to a simple question: why should a family of four pay more income taxes than a $90 billion financial institution? That’s the total amount of assets held by Navy Federal Credit Union. Yet it is exempt from federal and state corporate income taxes, as well as sales taxes (and, in my home state of Florida, intangible taxes). This is corporate welfare.

He’s right that this isn’t a balanced approach to taxation, but he’s wrong about it being corporate welfare.  The answer isn’t to start levying income taxes on credit unions.  Since customers, American citizens, are the ones who end up paying the vast majority of a business’ taxes, the right answer is to reduce the income taxes on all businesses to the credit unions’ rate.

I agree, too, that even in a zero corporate income tax regime, personal income taxes are too high.  The present temporary personal income tax cuts should be made permanent—as most of our politicians now recognize; it’s only the Progressive-Democrats who not only oppose permantizing the current rates but want to raise them to Kennedy-era rates. Following closely on making those rates permanent, we then should debate lowering them further.

A family of four should pay a higher income tax rate than a multi-billion dollar business, or even a mom-and-pop business, pays, especially since that family already is paying those business’ taxes.

That family just should not be paying as much more.

Income Equality

Posted on by
Reply

William Galston doesn’t think we have enough, and it’s the successful one’s fault.

[T]his [trade leaving nations generally better off] is small comfort to those who lose out, especially because the winners rarely compensate them commensurately.

Galston is operating from a blatantly false premise here.

He does have a couple of solutions to offer.

First, they [government] could significantly expand the earned-income tax credit to bolster the incomes of workers somewhat higher up the income ladder. Second, they could implement a broader program of wage subsidies that would raise the wages of lower- and middle-income earners toward a specified hourly target.

Never mind that, with a Progressive-Democratic Uncle Sugar government paying these wage fractions, employers will have no incentive to pay as high wages.

Why not just skip these middle steps, and provide a Universal Basic Income?

Oh, wait….

Distractions

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Warner (D, VA), Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has objected to President Donald Trump’s revoking ex-CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance.

This might be a convenient way to distract attention, say from a damaging news story or two. But politicizing the way we guard our nation’s secrets just to punish the President’s critics is a dangerous precedent.

This is neither politicization nor punishment, but a safeguard of our nation’s secrets.  No one, regardless of rank, once they leave government service should have a security clearance.  They neither have a need to know nor a need for access, the two Critical Items—both of which must be present, not just one of them—for granting clearances.  Trump’s only error here is in not ordering the revocation for all persons who have left government service.

No, what’s happening is that Progressive-Democrats like Warner are using this manufactured kerfuffle over Brennan’s security clearance revocation to distract from the fact that their Party has no message whatsoever other than that America is not, and never has, been great and never will be until there’s free stuff for everyone, paid for by taxing the rich, taxing the energy engine of our economy, cutting back our ability to defend ourselves, and on and on.