Tag Archives: political parties

Perjury?

Posted on by
Reply

This is the oath that witnesses before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requires of its witnesses, when those witnesses are sworn (and if one witness is required to be sworn, they all must be) (scroll to Rule 9, para (g)). It’s not the same oath for all committees, but it’s typical.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I mention this because it turns out

Then-Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller wrote in an email in June 2012, about a month before a House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing….

“I am beginning to wonder whether I should do [the hearing] and affirmatively use it to put a stake in politics and c4 [regarding IRS targeting of conservative organizations applying for 501(c)(4) status].”

Miller also was never directly asked about the targeting. That removes the legal aspect of perjury: Miller would seem not to have perjured himself.

But morally? Yew betcha.

Taxes and Congress

Posted on by
Reply

The 113th Congress, in its last days, has passed and sent to President Barack Obama for signature (or veto) a bill extending expired tax breaks through the end of this year. It’s retroactive because the expiration occurred at the end of last year. And the extension is good only for a couple more weeks. The breaks are an amalgam of exemptions that

benefit big corporations and small businesses, as well as struggling homeowners and people who live in states without a state income tax.

A couple things about this. First, notice that phrase “tax breaks.” These represent special carve outs for selected businesses and selected individual Americans, and they’re a mix of crony capitalism and social engineering.

The other thing is the end-of-year decision making regarding the tax code. This isn’t unique to this Congress; Congresses have been pulling this stunt for decades.

If we had real tax reform, say a tax code that eschewed social engineering, that had a single, low, flat rate without loopholes, carve outs, subsidies, credits, and so on, and that everyone with an income paid, there’d be no need—no opportunity—for this late year, late night, wrangling. And there’d be no need for tax breaks, loopholes, carve outs, subsidies, credits, and so on.

This also would both reduce the breadth of influence of special interests and reduce the availability of our tax code—and our tax money—for government-determined social engineering.

This is a thing the 114th Congress should take up with some urgency—”on day one.” It’s highly likely that Obama would veto real tax reform, but that in itself would be not so bad. At worst, that would help shape the 2016 elections and clarify differences between those who understand and respect the wisdom of American citizens and those who think government must be involved in our lives for our own good.

This is a test of both camps.

Why Would Anyone Want To Do Business with the Illinois Government?

Posted on by
Reply

A bit less polemic (but only a bit); however, the Illinois government is being openly dishonest in its business dealings.

The Land of Lincoln has accrued a $111 billion unfunded liability for government workers’ pensions—up 75% from five years ago. There is an additional $56 billion of unfunded debt to cover health benefits for the state’s retirees. Illinois today is already spending more of its general fund on pensions than on K-12 education. One in four tax dollars pays for its retired workers’ benefits. Last year the state had to defer paying $7 billion owed to contractors. All this after Democrats in 2011 raised income taxes and corporate taxes by 67% and 30%, respectively.

How can any business expect to get paid by a government so far into debt with so little means of raising the money to pay it? How can the Illinois government incur additional (contractual) obligations with private (or other) businesses, knowing as it must know, that it has no hope of meeting its current obligations under its current tax and spend régime?

The only legitimate way, the only moral way, to unilaterally alter a contract is through bankruptcy. Like Stockton, CA, and Detroit, MI, and others have had the integrity to do. But states can’t do bankruptcy. Illinois (in the present case) can only cut spending (except now, for their debt); counterintuitively (to Democrats, anyway), reduce tax rates; and otherwise get out of the way of Illinois citizens and those citizens’ private sector economy.

“Green” Energy, Competition, and Consumers

Posted on by
Reply

Technologies that can’t compete in the market place aren’t ready for market, nor are they ready for our consumption. Subsidizing these not-ready techs is one way of plusing them up. Another way is to penalize their competition for being too successful.

The New York Times tells this tale, albeit carefully buried in the nether regions of Katharine Seelye’s article. Overarching all of this is this:

New England [Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont] already pays the highest electricity rates of any region in the 48 contiguous states because it has no fossil fuels of its own and has to import all of its oil, gas, and coal.

That’s not strictly true; the Marcellus Shale holds more natural gas than you can shake a…drill…at, and a significant fraction of that lies under western New York. New York, though, is throwing every road block they can think of in the way of extracting the natural gas, which would give the Northeast a nearby, if not local, source of natural gas.

There are two items of interest that backdrop this. One is the spiking energy prices in the Northeast. For instance,

[f]or October, [a small business owner] had paid $376. For November, with virtually no change in his volume of work and without having turned up the thermostat in his two-room shop, his bill came to $788, a staggering increase of 110%.

The other is the lack of infrastructure: there are all of five pipeline systems in the region, with seven new systems proposed.

The six states’ governors had agreed to a regional solution to this, involving building those additional pipelines.

However.

Just last August,

the Massachusetts Legislature rejected the plan, saying in part that cheap energy would flood the market and thwart attempts to advance wind and solar projects. That halted the whole effort.

That halted the whole effort.

But, it’s OK. Progressives and “environmentalists” have your back. And they have sharpened their knives.

 

h/t Power Line

Massachusetts’ Native American Senator Elizabeth Warren Objects

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrat from Massachusetts is saying that

House Republicans were threatening to shut down the government if they didn’t get a chance to repeal part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law.

What Warren objects to is a provision in the proposed House funding bill—which funds the entire government, mind you—that would “undo the Dodd-Frank provision that prohibited bank units within the federal financial safety net from betting on derivatives.” This is critical because only Progressives like Warren know how to run a bank, or any other private enterprise. We’re seeing today how well government-run (VA) hospital businesses are doing, how well government-directed medical practices are working out, how well government-mandated health coverage plan businesses are doing.

Americans for Financial Reform Executive Director Lisa Donner added this:

The section of Dodd-Frank that Congress is proposing to repeal was put in place to help prevent future bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks[.]

While carefully eliding the fact that other sections of Dodd-Frank guarantee taxpayer bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks by declaring them systemically important and so subject to government seizure and “correction” outside bankruptcy law.

Finally, the only ones talking about shutting down the government are the Democrats.

The Gruber virus is spreading rapidly. This would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.