by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, POLITICS
For years I have been following the candidates that have been supported by the Club for Growth, contributing to both their campaigns and to the Club. Although overall they do a decent job finding and supporting candidates , there are two areas in which they are weak.
The Club For Growth has always been an advocate of the free market, limited government, and low taxes — the same thing that the Tea Party originally intended to be. However, within this realm, there are four things that the Club For Growth does not focus on, but they need to. These are: immigration, tariffs, the Jones Act, and ethanol. So you can have a good libertarian, free market candidate, but if that person turns out to also have unfavorable stances in one or more of those areas, they weaken their position. The Club For Growth needs to expand their vetting to include these four areas in their overall approach.
Additionally, the Club For Growth needs to continue to monitor those who have taken office. While it is understandable that with somewhat limited resources, they want to use most of those resources to find new candidates, it does no one any good if the people they have recommended end up going off the rails. There has to be some sort of follow up. For instance, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, and Josh Hawley are all examples of people elected in no small part by the Club, but for which we now have serious buyers remorse. These three have taken inexcusable positions on tariffs, free markets, big government, etc. It is disappointing and unacceptable to see Club For Growth focus only on getting new people elected while neglecting to hold these and other candidates accountable for their changed positions. It would be wise for the Club For Growth to practice better vetting and consistent follow up if they want to maintain being a trusted voice in the political landscape.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM
An Open Letter to Tea Party Patriots:
Years ago, I joined the Tea Party in New York, because I sincerely believed in its simple, yet extremely powerful and direct message. The Party stood for low taxes, limited constitutional government, individual liberty, and rule of law — and nothing else. The Tea Party was not meant to be a political “Party” with positions on everything. It would only be involved in efforts that protected their core beliefs so as not to dilute their message.
Therefore, it is extremely disappointing that the Tea Party has lost its mind over issues that go against their core principles. For instance, what is this nonsense espousing substantial anti-immigration rhetoric? A large reason for such a high number of “illegal” immigrants is because the government has created arbitrary, low quotas which limit the amount of foreign-born workers allowed. How can someone espousing limited government, individual liberty, and rule of law be FOR crony capital government-imposed restrictions on businesses hiring who they want?
The current Tea Party was galvanized by the original (Boston) Tea Party and share the same disdain over high and unjust taxation. But the original “tea partiers” would be turning over in their graves by being associated with the current Tea Party’s anti immigration stance! Here we have people who work and are motivated enough to uproot and better themselves by living in another country. That is the best kind of ethic we need to continue to nourish and aspire to America, the way we always have.
For the Tea Party to be close-minded and protectionist on the issue of immigration flies in the face of the original Tea Partiers who inspired them. The Tea Party would do well to return to focusing on its core ideals if it wants to be any bit effective in the public square
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, TRUMP
I came across this article describing how the FDA is holding up a vaccine that’s being used in other countries. This the best concise explanation I have seen to describe the truth that the FDA drug oversight is a net negative to American’s health. From the article:
“In March, when the coronavirus arrived in the US in earnest, governments around the country locked down economies to prevent the spread of a virus that to date has claimed the lives of nearly 400,000 Americans. While these actions were being taken, a vaccine had already been developed. The mRNA-1273, a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine, was made in a single weekend in January, two days after Chinese researchers published the coronavirus’ genetic code.
Developing the vaccine was the easy part, it turns out. Testing the vaccine and navigating it through the federal bureaucracy was the real challenge. Not until March 16, more than two months after the vaccine was developed, were the first trial participants vaccinated. And these trials were followed by more later-stage clinicals.
There was another option that would have made the vaccine available much sooner: challenge trials, a process that would have involved deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 to accelerate vaccine development. Reports show at least 25,000 people volunteered to do just that.
The FDA rejected this course.“
It’s definitely worth reading the analysis in its entirety. You can read the article here.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, TRUMP
Democrat Kamala Harris is the latest Presidential candidate to peddle the myth about “pay gaps” for female workers, going so far as to make this an essential part of her platform. Harris has a plan to require larger companies with 100 or more employees to obtain an “equal pay certification” every two years in order to ensure that men and women are paid equally.
There are many reasons a pay gap to exist — but it isn’t because of one’s gender. It has been shown time and again that many women have alternative career paths by choice: different jobs, amounts of time worked, lifestyle flexibility, and risks in occupation to name a few; therefore, any difference in the pay is a result of those choices and not discrimination.
Taking these items into consideration, the pay gap myth shrinks almost entirely, likely no more than a 2% variance. This empirical analysis should not be surprising — in fact, it should be what any normal person, certainly any business person, would expect. Because the simple economic reality is that if women actually did make 23% less than men in wage costs for the same work, businesses would almost entirely hire women as a means to minimize labor costs and maximize profits. Since this does not actually happen, it is obvious that the 23% wage disparity merely a distortion perpetuated by the Left to score easy talking points.
It is also a false conclusion that a gender pay gap is damaging to women because women will likely have substantially less money saved and earned over her lifetime. Those such as Harris that push such nonsense don’t even consider that, for many women, working full time may be “damaging” to women who have alternative life goals — such as raising a family — and that amassing retirement funds might not be the ultimate end focus. Voters should reject Harris “equal pay certification” proposal as economic nonsense.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley is leading the charge to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, essentially giving the government broad powers to regulate tech industry giants. This legislation undermines free speech and would be an egregious overreach of federal powers under the guise of “fairness.”
As Section 230 was construed, it’s aim “was to protect the openness of online culture while also protecting kids from online smut, and protecting the web at large from being overrun by defamatory, hateful, violent, or otherwise unwanted content.” The legal framework that was developed ensured that digital platforms are different entities from their users and are therefore not legally responsible for user content — good, bad, or otherwise. It was a way to protect First Amendment rights in an online world.
Hawley’s amendment would weaken the protections granted to social media companies by requiring them to first show regulators how they make decisions about content and then prove to those regulators that their moderation systems are neutral. Essentially, Hawley’s attempt to push back at various instances (real or imagined) of right-leaning users being treated unfairly or blocked by tech giants means that we have a Republican willing to not only institute severe regulatory behavior but also create anti-free speech monitors. Furthermore, facing possible legal repercussions from user content, companies would likely just ban or remove content others have flagged for any and all reason of being offended.
The antidote to bad speech is not good speech; it is free speech. Removing such free speech protections is an outrageous proposal, and putting the government in charge of deciding speech neutrality is even worse. Shame on Senator Hawley for attempting to regulate “fairness” and launching an assault on our First Amendment rights.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, POTUS, TAXES, TRUMP
House Republicans have put forth a bill that would make some of the tax cuts and changes permanent instead of expiring after a few years. This includes:
- The reduction in the individual tax rates
- The increased new standard deduction, which went to $12000/individual and $24000 married couples
- Special deduction for pass-through business owners
It’s worth noting that the corporate tax reduction was already permanent with last year’s law. Other additional financial parts of this new legislation include:
- Allowing employers to join together to offer 401Ks in order to lower costs
- Allow 401K users who have an annuity to transfer it tax-free to an IRA
- Remove the age ceiling (70½) requiring distributions from IRAs and 401Ks, and continue to contribute up to $6,500/year in an IRA
- Create a new universal savings account with a maximum of $2,500/year
after tax funds that can used for non-retirement purposes
- Allow parents to remove up to $7,500 from a retirement plan without penalty under certain child-related conditions.
- Allow 529 college savings accounts to fund various other educational expenses, including apprenticeship programs, home schooling, or child student loan payments.
As if on cue, Democrats rebuke the legislation as being overly beneficial to the wealthy — as if the economic upswing which has helped everyone across-the-board, has not happened. They also chide the bill for adding to the federal deficit, even though Democrats were virtually silent when Obama had very sizeable deficits throughout most his administration. However, putting forth the legislation at this time indicates that Republicans are interested in talking about the strong economy ahead of the midterms elections — which is the smartest thing they can do right now. The GOP missed the chance to make the Bush Tax cuts permanent. They would do well not to make the same mistake twice.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
When is a tax not a tax? When it’s a user fee — at least in New Jersey. That’s what one lawmaker is attempting in the legislature. A bill that would tax water based on use, in order to “ is fix a crumbling water delivery infrastructure in the state.”
The problem is that a tax already exists for that purpose. It was enacted in 1984, and is charged as a public utility franchise tax on water system operators of $0.01 per 1,000 gallons of water delivered to a consumer in order to “ensure clean drinking water in New Jersey.” This new tax/fee would be instituted on tap water, adding 10 cents for every 1,000 gallons of water a home uses.
Considering that the governor of New Jersey, Phil Murphy, just raised taxes roughly $2 billion, this new “user fee” is utterly ridiculous. New Jersey must be trying to catch up to New York, which already taxes water (albeit bottled, not tap.) New Jersey should kill this bill.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW, TAXES
New York Governor Cuomo leads a four-state lawsuit against the federal government over the tax reform law that passed last fall. Governor Cuomo declared it “a practical act of self-defense against an adversarial federal government” and suggested that the bill was aimed to target left-leaning states.
But everybody who has any knowledge of taxation and its constitutionality knows that Cuomo’s assertion is ludicrous. The SALT deduction – and ALL deductions – are at the complete discretion of Congress. And as long as deductions apply under the same rules to every taxpayer no matter where situated, constitutionality can never be an issue.
Cuomo’s sudden role as tax crusader is laughable at best, hypocritical at worst. Cuomo and his cronies would do well to focus on reducing their states’ tax burden for their citizens instead of over something that is patently constitutional.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, IRS, TAXES
The State Department, in tandem with the IRS, has stepped up enforcement of an Obama-era law that blocks Americans with ‘seriously delinquent’ tax debt from receiving new passports — and will, at some point — be allowed to rescind existing passports of people who fall into that category.”
The roots of this law began back in 2012, when a report issued by the GAO suggested the possibility of tying tax collection to passport issuance, in an effort to collect revenue. Soon thereafter, Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill in Congress that did just that, with a threshold of $50,000 in delinquency. The bill had been attempted several times in Congress over the last few years before finally being passed in late 2015; it was quietly tucked into a highway-funding bill (HR22).
Though there are exceptions to the rule (emergency and humanitarian travel, for instance), valid criticisms of the rule were raised. For instance the law isn’t limited to criminal tax cases or even situations where the government fears you are fleeing a tax debt; your passport can now get revoked merely because you owe more than $50,000 and the IRS has filed a notice of lien. Yet a $50,000 tax debt is easy to amass today and tax liens are pretty standard. The IRS files tax liens routinely when you owe taxes. It’s the IRS’ way of putting creditors on notice so the IRS eventually gets paid; the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the new law would raise about $400 million over the next decade.
A serious problem, however, looms for millions of U.S. citizens living abroad. Passports, obviously, are essential for travel, residency permits, banking, school, and work visas; yet, the IRS has documented trouble with getting mail properly to expats.
Furthermore, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, say the notices to debtors often come at the same time the State Department is notified of the taxpayer’s debt, in some cases leaving not enough time to resolve tax issues before passport problems occur.
None of that seems to matter to the IRS, which has reported that 220 people have turned over $11.5 million to repay their full debts as of late June, while 1,400 others had set up payment plans to reduce their debts. Essentially, more than 350,000 Americans face passport denial when applying or renewing, with little to no recourse for an agency plagued with problems.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY
I’ve written about Andrew Weissmann in these pages before, and this article, written earlier in the year, recently came to my attention. Weissmann has a history of despicable lawyer practices, and this latest article shows growing concern about his past tactics — which could ultimately affect his role in the present investigation. I have reprinted the article below:
The top attorney in Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s office was reported to the Department of Justice’s Inspector General by a lawyer representing whistleblowers for alleged “corrupt legal practices” more than a year before the 2016 presidential election and a decade before to the Senate Judiciary Committee, this reporter has learned.
Described by the New York Times as Mueller’s ‘pitbull,‘ Andrew Weissmann, a former Eastern District of New York Assistant U.S. Attorney, rose through the ranks to eventually become Mueller’s general counsel at the F.B.I.
In 2015 Weissmann was selected to run the Department of Justice’s criminal fraud section and was later handpicked by Mueller to join the ongoing Special Counsel’s Office investigation into the alleged obstruction and alleged collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.
But Weissmann’s rise to the top was rocky from the start. Although he’s been described as a tough prosecutor by some, his involvement in a case targeting the Colombo crime family in a New York Eastern District Court was the first of many that would draw criticism from his peers, as well as judges.
Civil rights and criminal defense attorney David Schoen, was the lawyer who reported Weissmann. Schoen met with Inspector General Michael Horowitz and several FBI officials to discuss Weismann in 2015. Schoen, who says he has never been a member of a political party, told this reporter his concerns about Weissmann do not stem from politics but from Weissmann’s ‘egregious’ actions in previous cases. He became involved in Colombo crime cases more than 20 years ago after evidence revealed that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in the case.
Schoen said he decided to revisit the case based on new witness information and “recent evidence that has come to light in the last several months.”
“The issue with Weissmann both pre-dates and transcends any of these current political issues,” said Schoen, who also used to represent the ACLU in Alabama. “I have met with Senator (Charles) Grassley’s staff and the DOJ IG about these issues and that was well before all of this…I care about these issues as a person who chose this profession and am otherwise very proud to be able to practice law, as the proud son of an FBI agent, and as a civil rights attorney dedicated to doing my part in trying to improve public institutions.”
John Lavinsky, a spokesman for the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General, declined to comment on Schoen’s meeting with Horowitz.
Weissmann also declined to comment for this story.
