Fallout from Liberty Justice v. Trump

If I had millions of dollars to burn on activist suits, I would sue the Supreme Court to clarify its ruling in Liberty Justice (VOS Solutions) v. Trump and explain why the ruling does not illegally conflate taxes which apply internally with tariffs, which apply at borders, and explain how taxes are not illegally separated from other regulatory tools in the ruling.

If taxes are not regulatory in function, then all of the "federal" welfare regulation enabled by the income tax should be declared null and void, and the 16th Amendment itself should be declared non-functional, because it requires breaking parts of the Constitution that are not addressed in the Amendment. And the power to tax individuals should be returned to the individual states or below.

I personally don't like Congress giving the president powers like this, but Congress did. 

The decision, it it is valid, should limit itself to suspending further application of the law in question until Congress can fix it by removing the supposed ambiguity.

That would eliminate the post-facto legislative effects that the decision in its present form seems to incur.

It is not the responsibility of the courts to rewrite law.

Looking at Taxing the Ultra-RIch

I am not in favor of having lots of ultra-rich people around. Really, once you've got enough in the bank to retire twenty times over, I think you should -- and get out of the way of others who haven't gotten there yet. 

That aside, which is more deserving of being taxed:

(1) A man whose net worth is a trillion dollars, but actual disposable income is only a million a year, but operates ten or so companies employing 50,000 people?

(2) A man whose net worth is only a hundred million, but whose disposable income is only a million a year, a significant portion of which is made through investments that he made after being elected to or appointed to some political office some twenty years ago?

(2A) Does it make a difference if person (2) persistently votes to be liberal with tax money, but not his own?

For the record, this hypothetical does not match anyone in particular.

To make this a little more concrete, say the proposed tax is a one-shot 5% net worth tax.

Let's calculate the taxes on (1):

5% of $1,000,000,000 would be fifty million dollars.

Is it clear that he doesn't have enough disposable income to pay that? 

He would have to sell off a bunch of stock, likely resulting in companies being taken over in hostile transactions, to be drained dry for somebody else's profit, before being shut down. 

Now, let's calculate the taxes on (2):

5% of 100,000,000 is five million dollars. 

Is it clear that he also doesn't have enough disposable income to pay that with a year's wages?

He would also have to sell off some stock.

But that stock isn't likely to be the controlling stock for some company that employs thousands of people.

It would still make waves in the stock market. 

In point of fact, with a whole bunch of rich people being put in the position of having to sell off, short-selling investors are going to push the prices down, punishing both (1) and (2), as well as the market in general.

But the real answer is that we don't have enough information to know which of the above is more worthy of being taxed, unless our answer is that the punishment to the market indicates that neither of them should be suddenly hit by a tax, and that five percent sounds small but isn't.

(2) may need to be kicked out of office. Or not. Depends on lots of things.

(1) may need to retire and turn things over to a new generation. Or not. Depends on lots of things.

The other real answer is that taxes are stupid. We should not be depending on the government to do our good deeds for us.

FACE (the Access Act) and What It Says about Sex and Religion

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) is nominally about making it a crime to use force or intimidation to block access to abortion clinics.

Looking at the FACE act, it would be easy to assume and conclude that the inclusion of protections for places of worship similar to those provided for women trying to access abortion clinics was just a matter of a bargain, to get votes from Congresscritters who otherwise would oppose it.

I'm going to suggest that it actually points out a rather odd connection that we continually sweep under the rug:

For a large part of the human race, sex is at least a significant part of their religion. 

For many, sex is their sacrament and their god.

There is a reason for this.

Sexual stimulation is one of the most direct means of stimulating a lot of the "feel-good hormones". Those hormones have sometimes been compared to drugs, and it is not being excessive to note that their effects can be as powerful as some of the most powerful drugs known. 

(There is good biological reason for this, as well.)

Religion is another of those most direct means of stimulating those feel-good hormones. 

What are some other effective means of stimulating those feel-good hormones?

• Daydreaming, philosophy, ... 
• Also, any work that clearly produces something of value -- which includes acts of service, ...

 Religion and sex tend to be the nearly universal quick and easy methods, however.

Where Does Congress Come Up with Names Like FINCEN, FBAR, and ICE, and Why?

No. Seriously.

If you want me to take the enforcement of financial law and the punishment of financial crimes seriously, does naming the financial criminal law enforcement network "FinCEN" make sense?

(That's FINancial Crimes Enforcement Network.)

Am I the only person in the world who's going to read that "finkin"? 

"Fin-sen" doesn't really make sense, since the "C" in "crimes" is hard.

And if you want me to take my legal responsibility of reporting my foreign bank accounts to the US government seriously, does naming the report "FBAR" make sense?

(And that is Foreign Bank Accounts Report.)

I'm pretty sure the first time you saw FBAR, your brain wanted to insert the "U" between "F" and "B". 

Yeah, I tend to lean to the idea that the current US government is Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition. Trump is a loose cannon, but we need a loose cannon right now, particularly after the total mess of the Biden non-administration.

But Congress is digging in their heels.

Another stupid acronym -- ICE.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Okay, it sort of makes sense, until you realize that the natural tendency to associate freedom of movement with freedom itself tends to give the Immigrations department a bad image no matter what you call it. 

So something nondescript like INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) was actually a good name, in spite of the minor irritant of the sometimes situational irony in the word "service". 

ICE, on the other hand, is just not going to inspire anything but contempt. Or perhaps temporary comic-book admiration, followed by contempt. 

Not respect.

Not confidence.

Not cooperation, ultimately. 

What is it with the government using such names? Are they trying to inspire contempt and worse?

When you read the laws behind these, the laws themselves are so confusing as to  undermine any confidence in the law that had been left beyound

I think there are, in fact, some members of our government -- no, many members of our government -- who intend to do exactly that, intend to destroy American confidence in their government, so that there will be a revolution, in the which they think there will be a vacuum that they can step into.

Before, we assume, the hundred thousand other wannabee little Napoleons can shove into the gap. 

It's hard for me to think of any other reason for such naming.

Now, before you go blaming Trump for this, it all happened before he even started talking about running for president. 

The people to blame for this have been around for a while, a lot longer than the current administration. Many of them would have been in Congress about the time of the original "Patriot Act". They would be the same people who gave you plenty of other reasons to be confused about what the role of government is or should be.

We are being played. 

SNAP MUST BE TRUMP's FAULT!!!

I am given to understand that, during Trump's first term, he actually used the allocated emergency funds during a government shutdown, considering it an unforeseen emergency. But using them left some funds available for other emergencies that time.

During the Biden administration, SNAP enrollment skyrocketed. The reasons for that can be set aside for the moment, but the emergency allocation did not match the enrollment. Enrollment significantly outstripped the allocations.

The numbers I hear are USD 4.7 billion in the funds, and just a month's worth of SNAP is going to be more than USD 8 billion.

Remember that Democrats started off October block-voting against a simple budget continuation bill that would have allowed SNAP and basically all the government to continue to function while Congress continued haggling over the details. The required threshold for the continuing resolution was 60 YES. Or 61, I'm not clear which.

All but 1 Republican Senators voted YES. All but 1 Democrat Senators voted NO.

YES got the majority, but, at 55 to 45, it was not enough to pass it.

This has been the result a total of 14 times over October. 14 times, the Democrats voted against continuing things essentially as they had been at the beginning of October. I'll let you ask them why.

This is not an unforeseen or unplanned emergency, and that was the question Trump was waiting on.

I am given to understand that Trump has, in fact, authorized using what funds there are as a stop-gap, but it's only enough to last a couple of weeks. And there is nothing to replace it. We're going to be facing the same question again, with no emergency funds, in two weeks.

And the continuing resolution has expired, so it's back to the House.

Are Capitalists Thieves?

Mamdani is apparently saying

Taxation isn't theft, capitalism is!!

Well, he's got a sort of point. Too many capitalists are not paying their workers what they are worth.

Setting aside the concept of paying workers more than they are worth, which is a management concept that bears exploration -- 

When a business owner refuses to pay his employers what they are worth, we can say he gets what he pays for.

Or we can say he doesn't get what he doesn't pay for.

Or we can say he often doesn't (even) get what he pays for.

But we have trouble saying he gets what he doesn't pay for.

If he does get what he doesn't pay for, it's only temporary, and he eventually pays the price for it. How far down the road it is before he pays the price determines how many others have to pay, too.

The trouble with applying that analysis to Mamdani's claim that capitalists are thieves is that we know some capitalists are thieves. Not all, but we do know there are some stupid capitalists who seem to enjoy polluting the very marketplace where they make their money.

But we also know all socialists are thieves.

Shutting Down the Government for Votes

For those who are confused by the Democrats complaining that it must be the Republicans shutting down the government since it's the Republicans that have the majority --

 

Budget bills require 60% of the votes in the Senate.

 

The Republicans do have a simple majority, but they don't have 61.

 

14 times, the Republicans have all but 1 voted to continue the budget as it was before October, so that Congress can debate ideologies without hurting you or me. One or two Democrats have also voted YES on the continuing resolution.

 

14 times, almost all the Democrats (plus 1 Republican) have voted against paying the government, the military, SNAP, and all the rest. 

 

55 votes is a simple majority, but it isn't enough to pass the budget bill. 

 

And in between votes, the Democrats have racked up one of the longest filibusters in the history of the US. While you and I are wondering how more than a third of Americans are going to eat in November, much less pay their bills, they are reading poetry in the Senate to prevent debate or discussion.

 

Why?

 

Because the continuing resolution does not roll the budget back to July or before, back before the government started getting halfway serious about trimming waste in the budget.

 

So it is the Democrats refusing to approve a simple continuing resolution which is shutting down the government.

 

And they are blaming the Republicans.

 

And they are keeping the government shut down until the elections this week.

 

It looks to me like blackmail.