Economic Performance

…and one Progressive-Democrat’s tax proposal.  Although, the fact is that these effects aren’t unique to Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D, NM): the trend of effects are the outcomes of all the Progressive-Democratic Party’s proposals, differing only in detail.

Warren’s particular proposal is to tax business profits above $100 million at 7%.  Here are some outcomes of such a thing, according to the Tax Foundation, with the FoxBusiness cited.  A tax like this would

  • reduce incentives to invest, so GDP would shrink by ~1.9% over the long-term
  • reduce a firm’s capital by 3.3%
  • reduce wages by about 1.5%
  • eliminate as many as 454,000 full-time jobs
  • reduce after-tax income across the entire economy by 0.93%, with the biggest reductions on the top 1% of taxpayers
  • considering that shrinkage of our economy, after-tax income reduction could be an even larger 2.16%

But, hey, it gets after that hated 1%, so it’s all good.

This is of a piece with all Progressive-Democrat tax ideas, based as they so much are on their belief that the money really isn’t the business’ money, anyway.  They didn’t earn that.  They had (Government) help.

The Mueller Investigation

Not just the report itself, but his investigation, too, that was the subject of his report. What were the circumstances of the investigation’s start?  What triggered it?  Who leaked so many parts of it?

Now that Mueller’s report of his investigation has been released, and especially since it largely exonerated President Donald Trump, it’s necessary to see what led to the expenditure of two years of personnel resources and millions of dollars on an investigation of a President of the United States that accomplished so little—and in some cases so redundantly.

The role of senior FBI personnel, the importance of the Steele dossier in the trigger event(s), the lies told the FISA courts to get warrants, the FISA court itself, the behaviors and roles of members of Mueller’s investigation team—these all have severely damaged the reputation of the FBI, and of DoJ generally in te case of the FISA court, and they have damaged more than that—they’ve severely harmed the ability of the FBI to function as a Federal law enforcement agency and of DoJ’s ability to handle actual justice.

Investigations into this, like the one to which AG William Barr has committed, are critical to restoring the FBI and DoJ and producing substantive sanction on those personnel who misbehaved during the run-up to the investigation, its start, and its conduct.

 

Largely exonerated: the putative purpose of the investigation was to look into Russia’s interference into our 2016 election process and attempted interference in that election itself.  On this, the investigation found conclusively that Russia did do those things, and it found that the Trump campaign, personnel involved, and Trump himself did not collude—had nothing at all to do with those attempts.  And that outcome, despite repeated attempts by Russian agencies to get those personnel to collude or to con them into colluding.

The investigation, on turning to claims of one form or another of “obstruction of an investigation/of justice/of…,” did find quite a bit of embarrassing information and a number of embarrassing incidents that will be used to attack Trump—and much of this derogatory information was cynically leaked over the course of the investigation.  Withal, a closer look reveals the overall exoneration here, too.

Much is made, in the report, of Trump’s public “attacks” on the investigation itself and its conduct.  This was, supposedly, pressure, interference, obstructive in nature.  This is, actually, nonsense—and it’s insulting to the personnel conducting the investigation, from Mueller on down.  Suggesting that Trump expressing his anger and distrust of the investigation and the investigators in Trump’s inimitable way is capable of influencing the investigators by the slightest iota is to suggest that those investigators—every single one of them, from Mueller on down—are such timid summer pansies that they would be bothered by those words.  On the contrary, there’s nothing more to these public remarks than those implied insults and textbook projection by those expressing concerns about the impact of Trump’s words.  Even when those expressions come from the investigators themselves via the report.  Perhaps those investigators didn’t belong on Mueller’s team—their weakness, if not their bias, is exposed by their “findings.”

Much is made, also, of Trump’s (at least according to the claims of Mueller’s interrogatees over the course of his investigation) ordering various staff members to fire Mueller, to “influence” witness/interrogatees prior to their interrogations, of Trump’s personal attempts (allegedly) of such tampering.  What’s ignored here, too, in assessing the meaning of these things (stipulating they’re accurately, if narrowly, described) are three things in particular.

One is that Mueller was never fired, nor was his investigation ever actually interfered with.  It proceeded to its full and Mueller-style objective finish.

Another, regarding the behind the scenes interactions, is that had Trump been serious about firing Mueller or interfering with the investigation, Mueller would have been fired, the investigation actually interfered with, witnesses/interrogatees actually interfered with, and so on.  In the realization, though, Trump did none of these things, staffers were not fired and replaced with those who would obey those “instructions,” Trump did not bypass those staffers and act himself, and on and on.  He did none of those things because he wasn’t serious, except in the anger of the moment, as a man falsely accused (not just wrongly so) and faced with a years-long drumbeat of biased publicity and petty partisan attacks (and not just on himself, but on his family and his friends and his advisors) vented his anger in those moments.  The fact is, despite the claims of interference, of outright obstruction, none occurred.  None occurred, not because staffers disobeyed Trump, as so many of the NLMSM would have it, but because there was nothing to disobey.

A third thing is all the information and documentation—millions of pages of it—that Trump willingly and voluntarily released to Mueller and his investigation.  All of this information was free for the asking.  All of this information would have exposed the contradictions of Trump’s…obstruction…and they did not because there was none.

And all of that information freely provided is cooperation, not obstruction, except in the Newspeak dictionary of Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM.

This is the backdrop that emphasizes the importance of Barr’s investigation, separate from that of the DoJ’s Inspector General.

Citizen’s Arrests

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) has no understanding of duty or of law.  It seems that an armed group of citizen militia caught 200 illegal aliens in the act of illegally entering our nation near Sunland Park, NM, and they detained those illegal aliens until US Border Patrol agents—which those citizens called—could arrive and take charge.

In her response to this, Grisham said,

It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone[.]

On the contrary, it should go without saying that regular citizens have both the authority and the duty to arrest and detain until the arrival of formally constituted authority—police or Border Patrol agents, for instance—persons committing crimes in the presence of those citizens.  It also should go without saying that that authority and that duty derive from the plain duties of citizenship.

It’s both instructive and illustrative that this Progressive-Democrat does not understand the obligations of citizenship.

An Outcome of Open Borders

Two members of MS-13, having been deported, have been arrested trying to illegally reenter our nation.  These thugs were traveling separately and were caught in widely separated locations.

The fact that they were caught might be an argument that we don’t need walls at key areas of our border.  However, such an argument elides the fact that many others get through without being caught because we don’t have those walls, which would both seal off the particular areas and would funnel penetration attempts to other areas more limited and more easily patrolled.

The continued flow of these thugs and of drugs is an outcome—intended or not—of the open border policy of the Progressive-Democrats.  Progressive-Democrats just don’t see thugs and drugs as much of a problem.

Progressive-Democrats do insist that they want secure borders, and that this can be achieved by technology.  However, they carefully do not say how technology will stop anything, since all technology is capable of doing on its own is watching—a necessary component of security, but very far, indeed, from sufficient.

These same Progressive-Democrats know that full well, which contradicts their pretense of not wanting open borders.

Fair Share of Taxes

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT) says the rich should pay more taxes than they do already and that if only they paid “their fair share” Party’s socialist dream programs could all be paid for.  He repeated that demand on last Monday’s Town Hall with Fox News.

On the other hand.

According to data released recently by the Internal Revenue Service, compiled by the Tax Foundation, the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid about $43.9 billion in income taxes 2016—which accounts for roughly 3% of all income taxes paid.

The top 1%—Bernie’s second favorite target, at that Town Hall and everywhere else he speaks—pay

37.3% of all income taxes paid during the same year

That works out to $545.8 billion.

Those are dollars.  Here are the tax rates actually paid by those two groups.

the top 1% paid at a 26.9% individual income tax rate
the bottom 50% paid at a 3.7% rate

The rap on President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s tax reform is that it gave the bulk of the tax cut to those Evil 1%.

Well, duh.  The reform’s tax cut here was an across the board reduction in rate and a consolidation of brackets, so that all taxpayers got essentially the same reduction in rates—with many middle-class taxpayers getting pushed into a lower bracket for an even greater reduction in rate.  However, those 1%-ers remain in the highest tax bracket, they still pay the most, by far, dollar amount—and so of course they saw the largest dollar reduction.

Beyond that, the personal income tax rate reduction is only temporary, and if the rates and brackets revert to their previous levels, it’ll be the middle-class that’s hardest hit.  Nevertheless, Progressive-Democrats in Congress refuse to allow the personal tax reductions to become permanent so they can have a talking point about their own second favorite target for the 2020 elections.

From that, it’s only natural that Sanders and his Progressive-Democrat cronies constantly avoid (refuse?) saying how much is “fair share,” just that it’s more, more, more, gimme, gimme.

Progressive-Democrats are the modern epitome of an 19th century railroad magnate:

Anything that ain’t nailed down is mine, and if I can pry it loose, it ain’t nailed down.