Raise Those Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat-run States are looking at ways to cover putative budgetary shortfalls.

  • Minnesota State Representative Aisha Gomez, a Democrat…sponsored legislation that would implement a higher tax rate for joint filers in Minnesota making over $1 million a year if federal Medicaid cuts take effect
  • Connecticut legislators have proposed a bill that would raise income-tax rates on couples making at least $500,000 and individuals making at least $250,000
  • Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, in May signed into law a budget that includes an increase in the capital-gains tax, among other things
  • Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, in May signed into law his tax proposal, which includes higher income-tax rates for state residents making more than $500,000 a year
  • Rhode Island in June imposed a new tax on certain vacation homes valued at $1 million or more

And this:

Many states face projected budget deficits after increasing spending and cutting taxes in the flush postpandemic years….

Notice that. Profligate spending leads to revenue shortfalls, so—raise those taxes, especially on the rich, who Owe Us. That’s akin to a business losing money, so it raises the prices it charges for its products.

Nowhere in there is any Progressive-Democrat-run State reallocating its spending to stay within existing revenues, much less cutting spending to do so.

I repeat a long-standing challenge of mine: can any Progressive-Democratic Party politician even say the words, “Cut spending?”

State and Party Affiliation and Comings and Goings

Posted on by
Reply

The following two tables show U-Haul‘s annual report on one-way interstate rentals, coupled with the party that runs the State. The first shows top 10 most favored destination States according to U-Haul‘s report, the second the 10 most departed-from States. In both cases, the number following the State is the State’s rank in U-Haul‘s preceding year ranking. 

Rank State Party Control
1. SOUTH CAROLINA (4) Republican
2. TEXAS (1) Republican
3. NORTH CAROLINA (3) Democrat Governor, Republican Legislature
4. FLORIDA (2) Republican
5. TENNESSEE (5) Republican
6. ARIZONA (8) Democrat Governor, Republican Legislature
7. WASHINGTON (7) Democrat
8. INDIANA (27) Republican
9. UTAH (13) Republican
10. IDAHO (6) Republican

 

Rank State Party Control
41. CONNECTICUT (42) Democrat
42. MARYLAND (44) Democrat
43. MICHIGAN (46) Democrat
44. LOUISIANA (45) Republican
45. ILLINOIS (48) Democrat
46. PENNSYLVANIA (38) Democrat Governor and House, Republican Senate
47. NEW YORK (43) Democrat
48. NEW JERSEY (47) Democrat
49. MASSACHUSETTS (49) Democrat
50. CALIFORNIA (50) Democrat

There would seem to be a hint here.

 

H/t Ricochet and Ekosj.

Not Entirely Sufficient

Posted on by
Reply

Harvard University and the Federal government apparently are nearing a deal that would pressure Harvard to abide by federal regulations around merit-based hiring and admissions as well as protecting students’ civil rights in return for a $500 million payment to “workforce and vocational programs.”

Pressure only, though, no overt, absolute requirement.

The administration wouldn’t appoint a monitor to oversee Harvard’s compliance with the deal. The university would pledge to continue to abide….

That’s a serious weakness in the supposed deal. Harvard’s management team already isn’t abiding by those regulations, and it already isn’t protecting its students’ civil rights—much less better reducing the school’s antisemitic bigotry and its pro-terrorist stance. Since it’s not doing, it can’t be continuing.

An addition to this deal is needed: Harvard should be required to put up a cash bond, say $500 million, for 10 years against its performance of its pledge. At the end of those 10 years, should the university actually have abided, the principal would be returned, and the accrued earnings on the principal paid to those workforce and vocational programs.

Blinken Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Secretary of State Antony Blinken wants a Palestinian state to be recognized, but his way and on his schedule, not those of France, UK, and Canada. I won’t go into those latter three’s offers, which individually and together amount to nothing more than Israel’s abject surrender.

Blinken, on the other hand, has centered his view on the idea that an Israeli occupation of Gaza

would perpetuate the misery of innocent Palestinians and be a recipe for an enduring insurgency that bleeds Israel militarily and morally.

Blinken’s position here, though, proceeds from a false premise, and given Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s publicly stated position on the matter, I have a hard time believing Blinken is unaware of the falsity of his premise. It’s either that, or he thinks Netanyahu is lying.

The fact of the matter is that Netanyahu does not want to occupy Gaza. He has said—and he’s right about this—that it’s necessary for Israel to control by its physical presence all of Gaza in order to finish destroying Hamas and driving the remnants out of the strip. Following that, Israel would withdraw completely in favor of Arab governance of Gaza via a body assembled and operated by a collection of Arab states. That’s an Israeli occupation in name only, with a clearly stated and publicly measurable milestone for Israel leaving. That’s not occupation in the sense that Russia wants for Ukraine or that the People’s Republic of China wants for the Republic of China.

An extension of that offer from Netanyahu is this: he’s saying it’s time for the Arab nations of the Middle East to put up or shut up. Those nations’ leaderships must accept and honor their own responsibilities and do the things, with their own resources, necessary to govern Gaza and restore the residents to safety, prosperity, and the liberty of determining their futures themselves. With this, there would be no need for a “Palestinian state,” which is an idea that failed with the collapse of the Oslo Accords decades ago and has continued to fail ever since.

I claim that a good start to this process would be for the Arab members of the Abraham Accords to put up.

“Materiality”

Posted on by
Reply

Texas voting law requires voters voting by mail-in ballots to verify identity via a state ID number or the last four digits of a Social Security number (SSN4). A Federal district judge ruled in 2023 against the law using the fictive logic that

It is self-evident that a voter’s ID number is not material….

Judge James Ho, writing for a unanimous 5th Circuit, articulated how clearly the appellate court saw through that district judge’s…argument.

The number-matching requirements are obviously designed to confirm that every mail-in voter is indeed who he claims he is. And that is plainly material to determining whether an individual is qualified to vote.

He expanded on that [citations omitted]:

The number-matching requirements are obviously designed to confirm that every mail-in voter is indeed who he claims he is. And that is plainly material to determining whether an individual is qualified to vote.
So there is no “disconnect between the State’s announced interests and the statute enacted.” And the ID number requirement “meaningfully corresponds” to the State’s legitimate interests in preventing the scourge of mail-in ballot fraud.

It seems to me the district judge slept through his high school logic class, and his law school provided no training in logic at all.

The 5th Circuit ruling can be read here.