“Jeb Bush’s Optimism School”: “The Only Thing We Have To Offer Is Fear” Is Not Going To Cut It Any Longer For Republicans

Originally posted on mykeystrokes.com:

The Republican Party faces a long-term challenge in presidential elections because it is defining itself as a gloomy enclave, a collection of pessimists who fear what our country is becoming and where it is going.

The party’s hope deficit helps explain why there’s a boomlet for Jeb Bush, a man who dares to use the word “love” in a paragraph about illegal immigrants.

The flurry doesn’t mean that the former Florida governor is even running for president, let alone that he can win. But Bush is being taken seriously because his approach to politics is so different from what’s on offer from doomsayers who worry that immigrants will undermine the meaning of being American and that the champions of permissiveness will hack away at our moral core.

No wonder Bush’s statement that immigrants entering the country illegally were engaged in “an act of love” was greeted with such disdain…

View original 623 more words

Presidential material

Throughout US history, a favorite source of presidential candidates has been winning generals in popular wars. We haven’t had one of those since Eisenhower. We don’t directly elect as president members of the House of Representatives. That lets out Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn. We don’t elect businessmen without political experience and that lets out Donald Trump and Herman Cain.

We do now tend to select as presidential candidates governors and US Senators from populous states. That lets out Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Scott Walker and probably Rand Paul. Is there anyone left on the GOP side? Perhaps in 2016, they should just concede, thus sparing the country another year of doing nothing during an election year.

Everyone on the GOP side gives a nod to Ronald Reagan. He was popular, in part, because of his sunny optimism. No one on the GOP side can match him. The only politician that I can think of who can is President Obama, and he is not a candidate in 2016. Continue reading

Fair tax not fair

The so-called Fair tax is not fair nor is it balanced; it’s a scam. It’s a scam designed by the 1% and supported by the GOP to shift the tax burden from the 1%  to the rest of us at the same time permanently reducing Federal revenue. Permit me to explain.

Before passage of the 16th amendment to the US Constitution on February 3, 1913, most Federal revenue was produced by various tariff laws. Tariffs were and are taxes levied and collected on goods that enter the country from foreign suppliers. The taxes were collected by customs offices in the cities where the goods entered the US, New York City being particularly important. Corruption in the customs offices was a recurring problem. In addition, US manufacturers lobbied for high tariffs to protect themselves and their industries from cheaper goods made abroad. The result was that US consumers paid higher prices for goods protected by tariffs. US manufacturers claimed that some of the higher prices would trickle down to their employees in higher wages, but generally that was not true.

In addition, members of Congress were corrupted by cash bribes and other gifts so that they would support high tariffs. You could think of the corruption surrounding tariffs as an earlier version of the corruption of our present campaign finance practices. Then, vote for my tariff and I’ll give you cash. Now, vote for my tax loophole and I’ll contribute to your campaign.

The 16th amendment to the US Constitution was passed during the administration of William Howard Taft, a Republican, not Woodrow Wilson as some seem to believe, It was enacted as a fairer tax and to eliminate the corruption around tariffs. The theory being those with more money should pay more taxes. However, much of the corruption in the tariff system has migrated over to an income tax system that has become riddled with special-interest loopholes. But that is no reason to toss out the progressive income tax and replace it with the Fair tax. It is a good reason to simplify the income tax and eliminate special interest provisions.

The so-called Fair tax is a flat tax, a consumption tax with a gimmick. The gimmick is rebates to lower-income earners, such as the Earned Income Credit that lower-income wage earners receive now. Proponents of the Fair tax want to eliminate the IRS and replace the graduated income tax, the capital gains tax and the estate (death tax) tax with the Fair tax. Their argument in favor of the Fair tax is that it would be simpler. That is true, but it is still a bad idea.

The 1% derive much of their income from the capital gains tax and the IRS is what keeps taxpayers honest. Most taxpayers are honest and the threat of an audit is what keeps them that way. As the threat of an audit diminishes, tax cheating increases. Elimination the inheritance tax would allow the wealthy to pass on their wealth to the next generation, destroying the level playing field that most of us support and also destroying our democracy. It was Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939, Louis Brandeis, who said that we can have democracy or we can have great concentrations of wealth, but not both at the same time. I agree.

 

Marsha Blackburn

Marsha Blackburn appeared on TV yesterday to criticize Obamacare (nothing new) and also President Obama’s choice of Sylvia Burwell to replace Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. She is entitled to her opinion, but why should anyone care? She is a member of the House and only Senate confirmation is required. In my opinion, Blackburn spends way too much time appearing on TV, instead of doing her job as a Representative. She probably has higher ambitions.

“It’s Time To Get Creative”: Want To Cut The Rich’s Influence? Take Away Their Money!

Originally posted on mykeystrokes.com:

Chief Justice John Roberts this week continued his gradual judicial elimination of America’s campaign finance laws, with a decision in McCutcheon v. FEC that eliminates “aggregate” contribution limits from individuals to political parties, PACs and candidates. The decision may not have a catastrophic effect, in a world where individuals were already permitted to donate unlimited sums to independent political organizations, but it is just another move toward the end of regulation of political spending altogether. If Americans want to limit the influence of money on politics, they will have to start getting more creative.

Roberts’ specialty is “faux judicial restraint,” in which he achieves his radical desired goals over the course of many incremental decisions instead of one sweeping one. In this case, as many observers have noted, Roberts pointed to our current easily circumvented caps on political spending as justification for lifting yet another cap, without noting that…

View original 405 more words