Tag Archives: culture

Taxes and “Give Backs”

Posted on by
Reply

There is a surprisingly broad misunderstanding regarding taxes and to whom those taxed funds belong, even among those who should know better. One example is The Wall Street Journal editors’ mischaracterization of Arkansas’ tax reductions in an editorial, which they subheadlined

Little Rock returns some of its booming revenue to taxpayers.

The “return of revenue” was this:

Governor Asa Hutchinson recently signed legislation that reduces the top state income-tax rate to 5.5% from 5.9%, effective New Year’s Day. The rate will continue to drop in stages to 4.9% by 2025.

Along with this:

The state Department of Finance and Administration anticipates that some 105,000 residents will soon pay no income tax as a result.

And this “sweetener:”

The legislation includes the sweetener of a $60 tax credit for some 535,000 Arkansans who make less than $23,600.

None of this is giving money back to Arkansan citizens; all of it is letting them keep more of their money in the first place.

Even the tax credit is less a giveback than it is a let ’em keep it, albeit after the friction of a tax man middleman has taken its toll.

Insisting on your Rights is Uncooperative

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the view of one lawyer.

It seems that the actor Alec Baldwin wanted a search warrant before he would turn over his cell phone to the Santa Fe Sheriff’s Department. Supposedly, Baldwin asked for one even before the sheriff asked for his cell in the apparent expectation that the sheriff would be asking.

Lawyer Christopher Melcher says that’s being uncooperative.

It is spin by Alec’s lawyer to say that he suggested the warrant. He refused to provide his phone without a warrant. That is not cooperation or a proactive suggestion.

What we think of Baldwin doesn’t matter. Nor does it matter whether he asked for the search warrant before or after the sheriff asked for his cell phone. Not only his right to have a search warrant implied by our Constitution. The government’s requirement to get one before any search is written in black letters in our Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What would be uncooperative would be the sheriff demanding Baldwin give up his cell phone without that warrant (which is different from the sheriff asking for it before getting the warrant in order to save some administrative hassle).

It’s attitudes like Melcher’s that give law enforcement and prosecutorial proceedings a bad name, whether or not Melcher is associated with either.

Laws and Rules

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats are unhappy that they haven’t had their way with our government, and so they insist on changing the rules so they can get their way forever after. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) took note of this from the Senate floor last Thursday.

In the span of a few hours, one Senate Democrat had renewed calls to nuke the Senate and break the rules, and another published a national op-ed arguing that Democrats should attack the rule of law and pack the Supreme Court.
Two frontal assaults on two branches of government, proposed in the space of about two hours. Entire generations of statesmen would have seen either one of those unhinged proposals as Armageddon for our institutions.

But this is the Progressive-Democratic Party. If they can’t have their way within the law, within the rules, they’ll change the law, change the rules. If they can’t change the law or the rules, they’ll simply ignore them.

The government of the People’s Republic of China, and of the predecessor nation on the mainland, operates and operated the same way. If the men of those governments don’t—didn’t then—like the outcomes of specific laws, or if the people become too unruly (in those government men’s eyes) under existing law, they alter the law to suit those men.

This is not to say the Progressive-Democratic Party is the same as the Communist Party of China. The attitudes and techniques of the two, though, are quite similar, and they produce the same outcome: a nation whose citizens are ruled by government men rather than a nation under law where all citizens are equal, including those government men, and government is subordinate to the citizens.

Playing Chicken with Trains

Posted on by
Reply

Bob Brody wrote of playing chicken with railroad trains when he was a high schooler and of the thrill of running those risks. Until he and his buds who saw an animal corpse on the tracks, an unfortunate who had neither won nor lost its race with fate, but who had run to a tie.

Brody then went on regarding the need for analysis rather than blind risk-taking.

He’s right, to a point, but only to a point.

You can win, or you can lose, but you’ll die if it’s a draw. And the train won’t chicken out.

Take all the risks you deem useful, hopefully after a risk-reward analysis. Just don’t settle for breakeven.

Fundamentally Transform America

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary Clinton, Progressive-Democrat and once a candidate for President and always a carper about the unfairness of her loss, now worries that were Donald Trump (D) to run for President again in 2024 and win, it

could be the end of our democracy.
Especially if he had a Congress that would do his bidding, you will not recognize our country[.]

“Our” America, says Clinton. She means her Progressive-Democrat travesty of a democracy were Party able to achieve its proudly stated goal of fundamentally transforming our nation with the socialist-driven economic policies they’re pushing so hard to enact and the racist and sexist identity politics moves they’re pushing so hard to implement.

That’s an America average Americans don’t want. We prefer a nation closer to that of our founding—limited government, personal responsibility, personal obligation, with that limited government stepping in only as a last resort, not the default.

Whether Trump runs and wins, or another Republican or Conservative President runs and is elected in 2024 to go with—hopefully—a majority Republican and Conservative House and Senate, we most definitely need to block the Clinton/Progressive-Democrat version and undo the damage Party already has done.