Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Tweet of the Day
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 24, 2017
Brooks is spot on. Immigration is what built this country. We need to make America America again: open immigration "The National Death Wish"— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) February 24, 2017
I Don't Believe in Trump's America
Political Humor
Facebook Corner
(Pro-Life Libertarian), Stupid. Trump administration signals a possible crackdown on states over marijuana
This is an odd one. It's against federal law and that has never changed. So this is simply going back to enforcing the law. Much the same as the immigration moves Trump has made just say enforce what we already have on the books. What really needs to happen is get the congress to remove the federal restrictions and allow the states to decide. The only legitimate role the feds have would be in regulating interstate commerce associated with it, but nothing more. But I don't see Congress changing the law anytime soon.
Okay, does anyone understand the concept of federalism here? There is no constitutional basis for federal law preempting traditional state regulation over internal commerce. This goes back to Depression era madness of the Filburn decision, where SCOTUS ruled that a wheat farmer's consumption of his own wheat constituted interstate commerce and thus subject to the nationally-imposed production quotas, etc. You really have to pervert logic to construe private consumption as a matter of interstate commerce.
The point is that there is no constitutional basis for federal regulation of a consumer product, particularly one that doesn't cross state borders. And I would further argue that interstate commerce authority is only constitutional in terms of ensuring a free market among the states, not in imposing anti-competitive majority preferences, re: Carolene Products. (If you are not aware of this famous case, Congress in the '20s, motivated by Big Dairy, prohibited sales of canned filled milk across state lines.)
So when the OP cites federal law, every legitimate libertarian should be calling "bullshit" from the get-go. We believe that federal law should only cover a few enumerated things (national defense, enforcement of natural rights and contracts, etc.), and that the state, by the 10th Amendment, deals with regulation of safety, health and other localized concerns.
PS. Yes, the OP does pay lip service to the concept of federalism but is willing to impose unconstitutional laws, like immigration restrictions, unless Congress repeals them. The issue has more to do with a court system which has routinely surrendered economic liberty protection since Carolene Products. I don't buy the OP's eagerness to enforce unjust laws and hope one day the majority will rediscover minority rights.
(relative's post). Economists at the Fed anticipate that Trump's protectionist tax plans would more than likely not do anything to help US manufacturing, the lasting impact being higher overall costs paid by American consumers for both imports and domestically-produced goods.
Yeah, but the border adjustment tax really doesn't have anything to do with Trump's illegal tariff threats. This has to do with the GOP House's plan to create a variation of a VAT-llke mechanism. For those who don't know, the VAT is a layered consumption tax through production to market that is like a national sales tax to the end user (in addition to whatever income tax they pay).; in Europe this typically amounts to around 20%, plus or minus point.. This tax is basically rolled back for exported goods.
The House's version is similar in effect but it differs in how it handles deductibility of business expenses. In essence, the House would not allow you to claim a deduction for imported cost of goods sold, while domestic companies could deduct labor costs, etc. This scheme would not pass muster with the WTO, which has approved the VAT (since both domestic and foreign produced goods are subjected to the same sales tax). That is, the WTO would not approve a discriminatory tax scheme against cost of good sold.
The GOP scheme would do away with certain tax avoidance schemes by shifting assets to more business-friendly locations (e.g., tax inversions where you shift headquarters to a low corporate tax country which, unlike the US, does not tax income globally). We are one of the few countries.that taxes business income globally vs. by territory. In a global system, if you tax corporate income say in Ireland, say at 12%, but the US has a nearly 40% rate (including a state income tax), the US government thinks it has a "right" to tax Irish-based income for the difference, even though it provides no services for Irish operations. It's a bit complex to explain, but in essence companies don't have to pay this surcharge until they bring the revenue home.
What this kerfuffle is really all about is we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world (except for a few small countries). The question is how do you pay for a corporate tax cut., and the GOP plan is an attempt to address this.
We do need to slash corporate tax rates and simplify the current schemes of special interest deductions, etc. But we also need a territorial tax system. There are good economic reasons to shift to a more consumption tax (vs. income tax) system. but most of us who are pro-liberty see a VAT as a permanent funding mechanism for big government and the corporate tax mechanism as a double dip tax scheme. We argue it's far better to cut government spending to fund tax cuts.
Love and Marriage
Okay, proposing in front of screaming kids is not what I call romantic, but whatever rocks your boat...
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Ken Catalino via Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Tom Petty, "Learning to Fly"
