Never Met a Tax Increase

…he didn’t like, this Progressive. President Barack Obama wants $320 billion in tax increases over the next 10 years in order to give tax credits to his version of “the middle class.”

This is rank, stinking wealth transfer. Nothing else. He doesn’t even intend to use the revenue to pay down the national debt he’s exploded over the last six years. The worst part of this is that Obama and his Democratic Party accomplices actually think this is right. The rich should “pay their fair share,” and government needs to spend the money. Never mind that “the rich” already pay 70% of the US’ income tax bill, while the bottom half(!) pay 3%-4%. Conveniently, these…Democrats…never get around to specifying what a “fair” share might be. Meanwhile, the debt keeps growing.

And

Obama also wants to close what the administration is calling the “Trust Fund Loophole,” a change that would require estates to pay capital gains taxes on securities at the time they’re inherited.

Here’s a thought. Work with me on this, it’s a hard concept for some to get: lower all income taxes to a single flat rate with no deductions, subsidies, credits, what-have-yous, and with no special treatments for this or that source of the income. Lose the death tax altogether; government should quit trying to profit from a citizen’s tragedy.

Stop using the tax code for social engineering. Have all Americans pay the flat rate, and leave in the hands of the heirs their loved one’s accumulations.

Now there’s no need for tax credits for some, which necessarily comes at the expense of others. The money inherited isn’t the government’s money, either; the government has no legitimate claim on it, and pecuniarily, it has no need of it.

Removing the tax code from the social engineering business eliminates the influence of a lot of special interests and lobbyists, too. ‘Course, that’s a problem for all politicians….

Keystone and Vetoes

All the pundits are looking to the Senate for an override of President Barack Obama’s pending veto of the pending Keystone XL Pipeline legislation. The Senate, it seems, has 63 votes for passage (which implies a cloture vote won’t be a problem), but the focus is on the Senate’s lack of four more votes to produce a “veto-proof” bill.

All the pundits are skipping over two key factors.

One is that a Senate passage with 67 Senators voting “aye” is not at all veto proof. That’s just for passage. The veto override is an entirely separate vote that comes after the President has, in fact, said “No” to his Senators and to the legislation. To override in the Senate, all 13 Senators voting for passage would then have to vote against their president to override. Every single one of them.

Also lost in the “veto-proof” blather, though, is a larger hurdle. Obama’s “No” would have to be overridden in the House, too: 290 Representatives would have to vote to override. That means that 44 of Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) Democrats would have to vote to override their President.

Good luck with that. Good luck with either of those.

Pass the bill, anyway, with a roll call vote in each House. Then do roll call votes in each House to override. Use Obama’s veto and those Democrats’ votes to shape the ’16 elections.

I Think the Man Overstates His Case

In a Fox News op-ed this week, pollster Doug Schoen decried President Barack Obama’s offensive refusal to present himself in Paris to stand beside French President François Hollande and with dozens of other world leaders who stood with Hollande as all of them called out Islamic terrorists’ despicable murders in Charlie Hebdo‘s* publication offices, of a French cop, and of four innocents in a Jewish bakery, all of which occurred in the French capital, Paris.ParisMarch2

Wrote Schoen [emphasis in the original]:

To speak about the most serious terrorist attack on Western soil since 9/11 in between speeches about his free community college plan demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding for the gravity of the situation in Paris and, indeed, the world.

To this end, it is not surprising that President Obama is the only Western leader who has refused to call this attack Islamic terrorism, even though President Hollande has declared that France is it at war with radical Islam.

But then Schoen went, I think, too far.

And to not even send Vice President Joe Biden or Secretary of State John Kerry in his place shows a level of disrespect that makes me ashamed of our nation.

I disagree. I remain very much proud of my nation and the steps America is taking, or attempting to take, to fight Evil in this world.

I am embarrassed and shamed by President Barack Obama and his failure here.

 

*If you follow the link to Charlie Hebdo‘s Web site, you’ll be greeted, also, by a pop-up. The French caption, translated, reads

Freedom of expression is a right

Weekly Charlie [Charlie Hebdo] needs you to survive

Support by making a donation!

Feel free to support them, in the name of freedom. Give ’til it hurts. Charlie Hebdo already has.

The Congress and the President

President Barack Obama is ready, willing—even eager—to work with the 114th Congress, instead of routinely bypassing it, The Wall Street Journal quoted “senior administration officials” as saying at the start of this new year.

Both Houses of this new Congress have introduced bipartisanly supported bills that would authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. And Obama has said he’ll veto that legislation, never minding that 70% of Americans—Obama’s employers, as well as the employers of the new Congress—want the pipeline built.

I’m driven to the conclusion that Obama’s claimed willingness to work with Republicans is just more Obamatalk, and that “cooperate with” still means “be reasonable: do it my way.”

The Lexicon of the Left

Daniel Hannan has one. Below are some definitions (with an occasional edit to bring it to the American Left).

RIGHT-WING: Baddie. Vladimir Putin, a lifelong KGB man who regrets the break-up of the USSR, is invading neighboring countries. This is a bad thing, so he must be “right-wing.” The mullahs in Iran abolished the monarchy, nationalized industry, and drove most of the middle classes into exile. But they’re also nasty, so they, too, must be “right-wing.” A crazed gunman goes into a school and…. [O]h, you get the picture. [Ed: Republicans oppose the Left; this is a Bad Thing, and so “right-wing.” Conservatives want to shrink government. This is a Very Bad Thing, and so “far right-wing.”]

DIVERSITY: People who look different but think the same way. Diversity applies to race, sex, disability, and sexual orientation. It emphatically does not apply to opinion. Indeed, when it comes to political views, it has taken on more or less the opposite of its Oldspeak meaning. [Ed: It’s good to have diversity from the presence of blacks and women. But when these worthies are Republicans or Conservatives, it’s a Doubly Very Bad Thing. These folks aren’t “right-wing;” they’re traitors to their race and/or gender.]

GREED: Wanting to keep your own money.

NEED: Wanting to be given someone else’s.

COMPASSION: A politician arranging the transfer.

DISCRIMINATION: Being unpleasant to women or black people. Literally, of course, discrimination simply means discernment. It is something we practice every time we decide between alternatives. But its political undertones have spilled over into every usage of the word, so that discrimination, in any context, becomes discreditable. A firm that discriminates in favor of properly qualified applicants, or a university that insists on good exam results, cannot wholly escape the sense that it is doing something shameful. [Ed: Hurting the feelings of a fellow student or of one’s professor.]

POVERTY: Inequality. Poverty is officially defined in the UK as having an income less than 60% of the mean. A few people get rich and, even if you’re better off in absolute terms, you’re suddenly “poor.” Funnily enough, the recent recession, which saw incomes drop at every level, caused a fall in “poverty” by this definition, but Lefties were more upset than ever. There really is no pleasing some people. [Ed: See the Federal Poverty Guideline. American poverty, far from being an intellectual characteristic of our Left, starts (depending on the favored program) anywhere from 100% to 200% above the Guideline.]

PREJUDICE: Hating other people. In its literal sense, prejudice simply means pre-judging a new situation on the basis of past experience. If you see an expensively dressed man, your prejudice tells you that he is likely to be well off. If a politician rings your doorbell, your prejudice tells you that he is probably after your vote. As Edmund Burke argued in his Reflections, life would become intolerable if we had to think everything through from first principles. But the anathematization of the word also touches its original meaning. If your common sense tells you that longer sentences would cut crime, or that there is a limit to how much immigration a country can absorb, it’s because you are prejudiced. [Ed: Prejudice—hating other people—is a contextual thing, though. It’s OK to hate Republicans.]

TAX CUTS: Squalid public services. For some reason, talk of tax cuts makes us think not of our tax returns but of our local amenities. It’s not so much that we believe that there is a direct link between spending and performance; it’s just that the phrase “tax cuts” automatically conjures up a series of images in our minds: leaky school roofs, bodies lying on trolleys in corridors, and pin-striped Tory spivs selling off school playing fields to their friends in the City…. [Ed: because it’s the Left’s absolute right to spend our money for us; we’re just too stupid to be trusted with that. So we’re taxed.]

FREE SPEECH: Support for racists. We have been told so often that “free speech can never be used as an excuse for racism” that the two things have become conflated in our minds. Arguing for the first automatically opens you to the accusation of supporting the second. If you think that I exaggerate, cast your mind back to the case of the pensioner in Liverpool who was charged with “racially aggravated criminal damage” after scrawling “Free speech for England” on a condemned wall. [Ed: This, too, is contextual. What the Left says is free speech; what Republicans or Conservatives say is Hate Speech.]

CONSERVATIVE: Neanderthal. Like “right-wing” (q.v.), but with the added bonus that it can be applied to both sides in the same conflict. Islamist “conservatives” want to impose headscarves while Western “conservatives” want to ban them. Hardline Israeli settlers and hardline Hamas terrorists are both “conservatives.” And so on. [Ed: Also: not Left.]